1951-05-04

OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT TO BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT________

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minisler): Mr. Speaker, I have a short statement to make that I feel confident will be welcomed by every member of this house.
By 11.30 this morning the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) had received final agreement by all ten provincial governments as to the terms of the proposed amendment to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions.
I have said on more than one occasion in the house that the government did not want to be responsible for any avoidable delays in dealing with this matter, and we have felt that hon. members would wish to have immediately the text of the address to His Majesty the King. Copies have been prepared in English and in French of the form of address which I am asking the Clerk to place on the order paper for Monday. The form is as follows:
That a humble address be presented to His Majesty the King in the following words:
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that you may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom to be expressed as follows:
An act to amend the British North America Act 1867.
Whereas the Senate and Commons of Canada in parliament assembled have submitted an address to His Majesty praying that His Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a measure to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom for the enactment of the provisions hereinafter set forth:
Be it therefore enacted by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same as follows:
1. The British North America Act, 1867, is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section ninety-four thereof, the following heading and section:	'
"Old Age Pensions
S4A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made 80709-17H
by the parlikment of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law, present or future, of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions."
2. This act may be cited as the British North America Act, 1951, and the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1949, and this act may be cited 19Mtll6r 3S	America Acts, 1867 to
There are copies available to be distributed to all hon. members so that they may see the exact wording of the amendment which has now been agreed upon with the ten provincial governments.
As hon. members are aware, the business for the first three days of next week has been arranged by all parties, and the government would not wish to disturb that arrangement. In view, however, of the general feeling that this is a matter of urgency, I would be prepared to move the address as the first item of business on Monday, if hon. members felt that it could be disposed of without any protracted discussion, and would be willing to defer debate on this matter of old age pensions until we bring before parliament the legislation to implement the constitutional powers to be conferred by the amendment.
I know that all hon. members would be glad to have an opportunity of expressing satisfaction with this demonstration of the harmonious relations now existing between the provincial governments and the federal government on matters of national interest. But that would take some time, and I think we all realize that it would be advisable to get this address over to London as quickly as possible, and to take no risks that any obstacle might prevent our dealing with this important subject at the present session of parliament. To do this may require us all to forgo an early opportunity of expressing our satisfaction in this regard; but if hon. mem-beis felt that the resolution for adoption of the address could be disposed of rapidly on Monday, without interfering substantially with the arrangement made to deal with external affairs, I should be glad to submit the resolution on that day.
I am not saying this for the purpose of avoiding discussion, or anything of the kind; but if it is the general feeling that we should try to get the constitutional amendment as rapidly as possible, and have the debate when it might not have the same possible consequence with respect to delay, I should be glad if hon. gentlemen would consider this
[Stage Direction]
Old Age Pensions
address over the week end, and if the whips will let me know on Monday whether it is the desire that we dispose of it quickly on that day, I shall then be prepared to move it. But if there is any feeling that it would be preferable to have the debate at this time- the government does not wish to impose upon the house its views as to procedure-we shall be prepared to do what the whips may suggest to me on Monday, before we meet at three o'clock, as to the desire of hon. members in this regard.
The address has to be adopted both in this house and in the other house. I am informed it is probable that it could be adopted in the other house on Tuesday. We would use the greatest possible dispatch in having it placed before His Majesty, and we would ask the high commissioner in London to use his best *efforts to have it dealt with as expeditiously as possible by the parliament of the United Kingdom. Our experience has been that addresses from the houses of the Canadian parliament have always received prompt attention over there.
I shall be glad to discuss the matter with the' representatives of the various groups before three o'clock on Monday to see what the feeling is in that regard. If the text which has been agreed to now-it took quite a lot of correspondence to get that agreement
__is acceptable to all members-as I hope it
will, because it is designed to permit the implementing of the report of the joint committee of both houses of parliament in respect to this matter-it might be a sacrifice we could each of us make to defer for the moment any extended debate.
Mr. Green:: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the Prime Minister's remarks that there will be conferences over the week end with regard to the procedure on Monday. That will be very satisfactory to the official opposition. We have no desire to delay the passage of the amendments. I would ask the Prime Minister, however, whether he can tell us the position with regard to the other proposed amendment to the British North America Act. I refer of course to the provision under which the provincial governments would be given th'e power to levy a three per cent indirect sales tax.


Mr. St. Laurent:: There has been no agreement upon that as yet. The agreement was upon the text of the constitutional amendment with respect to old age pensions, and upon proceeding with it at once without waiting for agreement on the other matter.


Howard Charles Green: Is this second proposal to be dropped, or is it the intention to proceed with it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The federal government
declared at the dominion-provincial conference that if the provinces were agreed that they wanted the other, the federal government would go along with them, and that is still the position.


Mr, Coldwell:: I think, the announcement
made by the Prime Minister is very satisfactory to ail members of the house, and I hope that we shall be able to proceed with the address on Monday afternoon. After all, there is some uncertainty about the political situation in Great Britain, and should a general election intervene it might delay us in doing what we want to do in Canada; consequently the quicker this matter can be disposed of by this house the better it will be. So far as we are concerned we shall be glad indeed to co-operate in having this address adopted by the house as quickly as possible on Monday.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question, Mr. Speaker? Failing dissolution of the parliament at Westminster, is there reasonable assurance that if this address is passed by both houses here within the next few days the amendment can be made at Westminster in ample time for us to proceed with the legislation at this session?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Of course one cannot
anticipate the effect of unforeseen events, but at the present time there is no reason to apprehend that the amendment could not be adopted at Westminster in time to enable us to deal with the matter at this session.


Mr. Knowles:: That is the government's
intention?


Mr. Sf. Laurent:: It is the government's
intention to lose no time. We had received final agreement from all provinces by half past eleven this morning, and, as the hon. member can see, we have the address before us.



INITIAL PRICES FOR WESTERN WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY FOR 1951 CROP YEAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. Boucher (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister state when an announcement will be made of the initial prices of wheat, oats and barley for the 1951 crop year?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: Were you asleep yesterday?
Right Kon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce): The hon. member was good

enough to give notice of his question, and I am prepared to make a statement.
I wish to make an announcement to the house in regard to the initial payments for western wheat, oats and barley for the crop year commencing on August 1, 1951. It is customary to make such an announcement at this time of the year so that western producers may know in advance of their seeding operations what the initial payments on new-crop deliveries will be.
During the debate early this session on the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, I made a full statement covering the developments in the board's marketing of this year's crop. I shall therefore confine my remarks now to the establishment of the initial payments for the 1951-52 crop year.
As for the principle on which the initial payments are based, I refer to my statement to the house on April 5 of last year, as follows:
In setting the initial payment, the government believes that it is bound to follow sound pooling practice, dictated by experience in pooling operations over the years.
Experience has shown that the only businesslike method of conducting such a pooling operation is to set the initial payment at a reasonably safe level that is well below the current level of selling prices. If sales permit, it is then desirable that an interim payment be made before seeding of the following crop and a final payment after the conclusion of the crop year. That is the policy which the Canadian wheat board is following at the present time-


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Just before an election.


Mr. Howe:: If the hon. member wishes to make a statement on wheat, perhaps he would let me finish first.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am just trying to be helpful.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is about your style of helping. The statement continues:
That is the policy which the Canadian wheat board is following at the present time, and it is a policy which I should like to see continued. It is in fact the only practical way to conduct such an operation, be it government or private. I remind hon. members that when the private pools were being conducted in western Canada in the 1920's that was the procedure which was followed-initial payments, interim payments and final payments.
With these considerations in mind, the government proposes to establish the initial payment for wheat for the crop year 1951-52 at $1.40 per bushel, basis No. 1 northern wheat
Grain
in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver. This is the same initial payment which prevailed at the beginning of the present crop year.
In the case of oats, the government has decided that the initial payment for 1951-52 shall also be at the same level as at the beginning of the 1950-51 crop year. Accordingly the initial payment effective August 1 next will be 65 cents per bushel for No. 2 Canada western oats in store Fort William-Port Arthur.
With respect to barley, the government proposes to set the initial payment at 96 cents per bushel for No. 3 Canada western six row barley, basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur. This is three cents per bushel higher than the initial payment which was effective for that grade at the beginning of the present crop year. When the grade spreads are announced next August, however, it is not expected that the initial payments for the feeding grades of barley will show any increase. The reason for advancing the initial payment for No. 3 C.W. six row barley is to provide for a more realistic premium for the malting grades over the feeding grades, without necessarily reducing the initial payments for the feeding grades.
Finally I must stress that all the prices which I have mentioned are, of course, only initial payments, and will be followed, I hope, by later returns in the form of interim and final payments. The total price received by producers will depend upon the success of the Canadian wheat board's efforts in selling these grains at the best available prices.


James Arthur Ross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask two supplementary questions. First, has any consideration been given to a floor price on flax for this crop year, as has been done in past years, particularly when flax is so urgently required for preparations in the event of war?
My second question is in connection with the delegation which interviewed the cabinet recently, and the request from the three prairie provinces for a payment of $48 million for two years following the last war. There was a delegation in Ottawa within the last few days, and there have been press reports. Could the minister give us a definite statement in the matter?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No consideration has been given to fixing a floor price for flax. We have in flax a condition which my hon. friend praises from time to time in his speeches, where private trading is in charge of (he marketing. We think flax is capable of looking after itself.

Inquiries of the Ministry
So far as the delegation from the farm organizations was concerned, the Prime Minister found it necessary to advise the delegation that payment in full had been announced in so far as the marketing of the wheat in the five-year pool is concerned.


Mr. Argue:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister think there is any possible danger that the price of wheat may fall so drastically that in order to follow sound business practices the initial price must be set some fifty cents a bushel below the current price?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The minister is neither a prophet nor a seer; I do not think he would care to venture an answer. But I may say that the advisers of the government, who are all from the prairie provinces and engaged in agriculture, who recommended entering into the international wheat agreement made provision that the minimum price for wheat for the year 1951-52 would be $1.30 per bushel. So that the government is at least more optimistic than those who framed the international wheat agreement.


Hazen Robert Argue: Farm organizations did ask for a floor of $1.60?


Mr. Gibson:: Oh, they ask for a lot.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the press report last night and today that the Minister of National Defence intends to make an important statement in the house today with respect to additions to the armed forces, will the Prime Minister say whether the report is correct, and if it is, will he give the approximate hour at which such statement will be made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Perhaps the hon. member would not mind if the answer to his question were given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence, who, I understand, has an answer to give.
Mr. R. O. Campney (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National
Defence': Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, if the house will give leave it is expected that when the house resumes at eight o'clock this evening the Minister of National Defence will make a statement as to the raising of additional forces.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
185. Departmental administration, $558,397.
Mrs. Fairclough:: Does the Minister of
Labour propose to make a statement at this time?


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to make any extended statement now. If I did I would be inclined to talk about matters that have particularly interested me in the short time I have been with the department. I would much prefer to listen to hon. members and then perhaps comment on the things in which they indicate they are specially interested. One or two other departments have been opened, yet I do not think there would be any harm in my referring to the changes that have been made this year in the presentation of the estimates.
To illustrate this, if hon. members will turn to pages 216 and 217 they will observe under the heading "Departmental Administration" that there is set out the total number of staff positions, both permanent and temporary, for which provision is made this year in the estimates. There is also shown the total number of such positions under this heading for the previous fiscal year. I am sure that that answers some of the criticism of former years.
Just below those totals is a break-down of the staff positions, giving the number of permanent and temporary positions, and there are also shown the figures for last year. Further down, at the end of the details of departmental administration on page 217, are shown the actual expenditures under the same head for the last fiscal year, to January 31,	1951, and the estimated
expenditures for the remainder of the year. I am sure that the work of the officials of the Department of Finance in assembling these details will prove most helpful.
If perchance in speaking on the first item any hon. member should discuss other items which appear later in the estimates, I should like to have the opportunity of commenting on those items when they are reached.


Howard Charles Green: That is entirely contrary to
the practice in committee in dealing with estimates. There has always been a wide discussion on the first item, and the minister in charge answers any questions that are asked during the course of that discussion. I hope the Minister of Labour does not mean that he will decline to answer questions which could be asked on later items.
'Hr. Howe.l


Milton Fowler Gregg: As my hon. friend knows, the Minister of Labour is responsible' for the Department of Labour and for the unemployment insurance commission. There might be points raised which I should like to refer to the officials of the commission and which I might And it difficult to answer if only the officials from the Department of Labour are here. I only wish to reserve the right to postpone answering any question that might come up in the general discussion of the first item, but I shall endeavour to answer all questions that I can.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, in rising
to speak to this item I should like first of all to compliment the Minister of Labour upon his first presentation of estimates for a complete year. I believe the announcement which he has made and the attention which he has drawn to the re-arrangement of the estimates will prove to be helpful. As we go along we shall be better able to determine whether or not they completely fill the requirements of this committee in dealing with estimates.
I come from the city of Hamilton, where we all had a soft spot in our heart for Humphrey Mitchell, the minister's predecessor. I am sure the minister will understand how keenly we felt his loss a short time ago. It is not given to man to know how long he has to continue his labours, and I am sure that the minister must benefit greatly by the work done by his predecessor. I know that the house benefited from the sage advice which he gave from time to time.
There may be questions I shall want to ask on the various items, but at this time I should like to make some general remarks on the labour situation in Canada, on the estimates in general, and to some extent on the unemployment insurance commission.
I think it is most important at this time that labour in Canada should have proper and workable industrial relations. I feel that it is more vital now than at any time in our history that there should be harmony among the productive forces of this nation. I do not think it is possible to have harmony unless men are happy and contented, not only with their employment but with their conditions of employment and their status in the community in which they serve. .
Coming as I do from the city of Hamilton I am greatly interested in the plans which have been made for workers in our community. When I speak of these plans I am thinking not only of the working conditions of the men but also of the expansion that is taking place in our great industries, an expansion which is sure to give in the days
Supply-Labour
to come employment to many thousands more than are now employed in our city.
With this in mind I was keenly interested a few short weeks ago in receiving the report produced by the Department of Trade and Commerce giving the details of private and public investment in Canada for 1951. According to page 33 of that report it is expected that in the calendar year 1951 there will be spent in Hamilton on construction, machinery and equipment, almost $100 million. The figure given in the report is $98,087,000, but I suppose we would be less than optimistic if we did not think it was going to go higher than that. The natural increase in prices is sure to account for some increase in this amount.
In the iron and steel industry alone there is an expected expenditure of nearly $67 million. Electrical apparatus and supplies comes next; then petroleum products; then chemical products; then food and beverages. There then follow a number of sundry items, and when all are taken together we have the amount of approximately $100 million which I have mentioned already.
Considering the number of men who have gone into our military services and those who probably will go into those services in the near future, it is more important than ever that the men and women who are left to carry the production load in the industries of this nation should feel that their efforts are appreciated and realize that the load which has fallen more heavily upon them by reason of their depleted numbers is one which will be shared by the citizens of this nation as a whole in the days which are to come.
I am sure it was just such a realization that prompted the minister to set up the national advisory council on manpower in February 5 of this year. The first report of that committee, published under date of February 21, contained some very interesting material. It. referred to the fact that there had been specific changes in the manpower situation which were indicative of the basic economic and related developments of the past year. It stated that there are 50,000 more persons in the total labour force, 40,000 more workers employed in woods operations, 70,000 more persons employed in manufacturing, and 17,000 more persons in the armed forces.
Of course that situation has changed even in the past three months. Later, the report goes on to say:
Accurate over-all information on the extent to which individual firms with defence contracts have already taken on more workers to meet their expanded programs is net yet available, but, based on the employment forecast survey of the Department of Labour and other data, it is estimated that employment on various types of defence activities
26E6

Supply-Labour
comes to naught if that same authority cannot so regulate its affairs as to ensure fair and proper treatment to its employees.
I should like to direct the rest of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, to the Unemployment Insurance Act and some of its regulations.
The primary object of the Unemployment Insurance Act is to provide for the employable person who suffers a period of unemployment. Members of this house will recall what the workers of the nation know, that this responsibility is jointly shared by three different groups. It is the responsibility of the employee to contribute his share to this scheme. It is the duty of the employer to assist by contributing a like amount, and the government has taken the responsibility of making the third side to the triangle by building up a fund which will serve the purpose for which the act was brought into being. With the enactment of the Unemployment Insurance Act, jurisdiction over employable persons left the provinces and was vested in the federal authorities. Yet now, Mr. Chairman, many years later, we have in the civilian labour force of Canada something over 5,200,000 persons. According to the latest report which I have at hand, the total number who are insured is 2,311,000; in other words, considerably less than half of the total labour force is listed as being in insurable employment.
This has been a matter of concern to many groups, and just recently was studied by the public welfare division of the Canadian welfare council. In referring to those who needed some consideration and who were not adequately provided for, it cites the unemployed and the self-employed who are not covered by insurance, and for whom in many communities no provision or inadequate provision is now made. Later in the same report there is a paragraph which reads as follows:
The group of unemployed who are not covered by insurance, who have not contributed sufficiently long to be eligible for benefits, or who, under the present insurance legislation, have exhausted their benefits, is a group for which the highly fluctuating numbers make planning the most difficult. In "good times," this group is relatively small; in "bad times," it can become so large that it is completely beyond the financial capacities of provincial and local authorities. The unpredictability of its size makes financing from inflexible local revenues impossible. Nor is it jurt that local authorities should be expected to carry the burden of a group which is indistinguishable from those covered by unemployment insurance except by the fact that its members work in occupations for which insurance presents administrative difficulties, or that they are the victims of employment conditions over which the provincial and local authorities have no control.
fMrs. Fairclough.l
This is a question which caused me grave concern during the time that I was on the city council of Hamilton, when I came into direct contact with this very problem. At that time I devoted a good deal of study to the problem, as I have since. There are many in this class of unemployed employables who never have been insured. Then there are those who are insured and who, when unemployment hits them, find that they have insufficient contributions to benefit. Regardless of the fact that they may have been paying into this fund for years, they will find that within the limits of the act, in the period to which they must have reference, they just happen to have an insufficient number of stamps in their book to enable them to apply for unemployment insurance benefits. There are those who fall upon particularly evil days and who receive unemployment insurance benefits but are forced to accept them for a length of time which eventually exhausts the benefits which are due to them.
Then there are those who are over-and I think I would be safe in saying this-45 years of age who are not particularly acceptable in many industries today, through no fault of their own. As workers they are just as good as, if not better than, some of the younger people. But I am sure hon. members of this committee know full well why they are not acceptable. It is true enough that some of the difficulty is the fault of the workers themselves who have from time to time insisted upon protection; and insurance companies being what they are, being dependent upon actuarial balances and wishing to establish themselves firmly, find that it is impossible to take older men into their insurance schemes.
I do not know where the fault lies, Mr. Chairman. It is a vicious circle. Certainly the men are right in seeking to protect themselves in their older years. But certainly it is also true that those who are financing these schemes and who feel that they must establish this insurance on an actuarially sound basis cannot be criticized for protecting the very contributions of the men who are paying into the fund. That is only right and proper; but it places the older man in a particularly bad position when he is thrown out of one job, probably through no fault of his own, and is forced to seek employment elsewhere. More often than not, that particular man finds that he is a drifter in the productive world. He takes a job where he can get one when workers are so much in demand that employers will take anyone; then when the labour force catches up with the demand, he is out again. Consequently

from that time on he has no continuity of employment and no hope of establishing himself for his old age.
There are also many people who work in agriculture in the summer; they drift out to the farms, work on the farms in the summer, come back into town in the wintertime and work in industry through the winter. Construction workers are encouraged to come to the city from other parts of Canada, and even from abroad. These people who come to the city for construction work have been told there is work there for them-I am speaking now in particular of those who come from other countries; they arrive in December and there is no work until March or April. This influx of building trades workers creates for the municipality a problem which is a grave one indeed.
Fortunately unemployment in 1951 was not moment the picture is bright. But in the year 1950 the local authorities in my city of Hamilton were greatly worried. As had been our custom, we had set up in the welfare budget an amount which we thought would be quite sufficient to take care of the unemployed employables for whom we must be responsible. I think I should explain, Mr. Chairman, to some of those who may not be familiar with the welfare regulations, that in Ontario the government accepts fifty per cent of the load of direct relief, and has laid down the rules by which that relief can be administered. It cannot be given to employables. Consequently if people are unemployed who would normally be placed in the employable class, they come immediately to the city for help. When their benefits are exhausted, or when they find that because of illness in the family they are unable to carry on, they come to the city for help. No local authorities will turn down applications for assistance to these people who have illness in the family or where there are small children to be taken care of. Consequently that load descends one hundred per cent upon the municipality.
We were faced with the problem a year ago when we set up an amount which was greater than that which had been set up in 1949, but which we thought would be adequate to take care of those people who came to us for assistance. However, the season was not far advanced when it was found necessary to supplement that amount by fifty per cent of the original figure. It was not a sufficiently serious situation to upset the economy of the city, by any means; but it was sufficiently serious that it pointed to what could easily happen with just a minor amount of unemployment in comparison with the total labour force.
80709-172^
Supply-Labour
Tne impact of these welfare costs on the municipality puts a grave burden on real estate and on property. When the property is a home, and when the home owner himself is a wage earner and pays unemployment insurance, he carries a double load. He pays for his own unemployment insurance, and, through his real estate taxes, the taxes on his house, he also pays for relief to those within his own municipality who are unemployed. Since many of these people in the larger centres come from other parts of the dominion, some from rural areas and some from other cities, the home owner is faced with accepting the responsibility for the care of all those who come from other provinces, and even from other countries. I contend, Mr. Chairman, what I have held for a long time, namely, that it is not proper that the total cost should be borne by local real estate.
In studying this matter I went back to 1945, the proposals of the government of Canada to the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction, and I found there these words:
Over the past seven or eight years there have been recommendations by the national employment commi-sion, the Sirois commission and others, that the dominion should assume responsibility for necessary relief to the employable unemployed. It has been generally suggested that the dominion should accept this obligation as part of any general settlement with the provinces.
Then it goes on, quotes unemployment figures, and continues in these words:
The coverage is incomplete and the duration of payments is limited, so that provincial governments and municipalities may feel that they are still subject to the possibility of heavy relief problems if unemployment on a substantial scale should develop.
The dominion government in its statement on employment and income announced that the maintenance of a nigh level of employment and income was "'a primary object of policy." The people of Canada and the provincial and municipal governments are thus assured of an active dominion policy to avoid and combat unemployment, but there is no underlying guarantee of payment of unemployment assistance by the dominion government if in fact unemployment should develop as a result of a possible world depression, or as a result of unavoidable dislocations beyond the immediate control of federal authority.
As a part of the general arrangement with the provincial governments, the dominion government now proposes to establish a practicable and comprehensive system of assistance to able-bodied unemployed persons as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the need for it actually arises.
That was in 1945. Then I went back still further, Mr. Chairman, to the report of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, which of course was before the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed, and I found these remarks in that report:
The experience of the past decade is conclusive evidence that unemployment relief should be a

Supply-Labour
dominion function. By unemployment relief we mean relief or aid for unemployed employables as distinct from unemployables.
On the next page there is an item which is headed "Definition of employability and eligibility for unemployment aid"; and, under this heading, it says:
Our proposal is that a clear line should be drawn between employables and unemployables and that the dominion should assume responsibility for employables only. In order to secure uniformity in the definition of employability, and hence equality of benefit for all provinces and municipalities, it would be essential that the definitions of employability and of eligibility for dominion aid be made by the dominion.
Then there is a footnote which elaborates this statement. I quote these excerpts, Mr. Chairman, from these reports to show the extent to which the problem has been recognized on a federal basis for many years, and yet to this day we have no acceptance of responsibility by the federal government for these people. When I make a plea for change in policy I do it on two different points: First of all, for the man himself and his family; and second, for the municipalities that are carrying such an unwieldy load of taxation, and for which there seems to be no immediate relief in sight. Any plan should be set up when there is no apparent urgency so that it may swing into action if and when any claims are made in either small or large volume.
The government has recognized the advisability of legislation of this sort. When I say that I mean introducing legislation at a time when there is no apparent immediate need for it, as is instanced by some of the legislation which has been passed by this house during the session. It should be recognized also in what is basically a non-defence department, although the workers in that department have an important effect on the defence preparations of the nation. It is unfortunate that it takes a war or the threat of a war to give our people full employment. For that specific reason I urge that this matter be considered as quickly as possible, so that the regulations may be geared to a peacetime economy.
As I mentioned earlier, there are in excess of three million workers in this country who are not covered by unemployment insurance, and there are some peculiar situations that develop. I received just this week two letters from men who have small farms, and who live close to the city of Hamilton. One of the men owns eight acres. I am sure everyone will agree that you cannot live on the production of eight acres of land. This land supplements his income by working in industry; or perhaps I should put it the other

way round:	he supplements the earnings
which he makes in industry by what he takes off these eight acres of land. But he finds that although he has paid into the unemployment insurance fund for a number of years, and although he has been on steady employment for a number of years, yet he has been told by the officials that in the event of his being unemployed he could not benefit from unemployment insurance benefits because he is a farmer and owns a farm. Likewise, a friend of his, of whom I also have a record, was working for a construction company. He applied for unemployment insurance benefits and was told that he was not eligible because he had some property all set out in grapes. Although he had received no revenue from them, and the grapes were not yet ripe, and he had not yet been able to sell any, he could not get any unemployment insurance because of the potential revenue. Although he had contributed to the unemployment insurance fund for some time, he was not eligible for the benefits. These are cases that should be recognized because, Mr. Chairman, I find men working in greenhouses are listed as working in horticulture. Accordingly, there is a link-up with agriculture, and they are not insurable. Therefore on the one hand you have people who are not insurable and consequently would not be able to benefit from unemployment insurance in the event of their becoming unemployed. On the other hand, there are men who are paying into the fund and who cannot collect because they have a few acres of land.
There is still, Mr. Chairman, another item in the Unemployment Insurance Act of which I should like to speak at this time. It has to do with clause 5A (1) of the unemployment insurance benefit regulations, 1949. I am sure the minister is aware of this clause, and of some of the injustices which have been created by its enactment; but in order to refresh the memory of hon. members who may not be familiar enough with the act to recognize the clause by its number, I shall read the first subsection:
5A (1) Every married woman shall be disqualified from receiving benefit for the period of two years following her marriage unless she is relieved sooner from any such disqualification as provided in this section.
There are certain circumstances under which that does not obtain but, generally speaking, that is the ruling. I maintain that it is most unfair and, more than that, that it is unworkable. I do not know how it can be established that an individual has been laid off for any specific reason, because there is available only the word of the person concerned. There is only the word of the

employee as to the reasons for his remaining at work, and only the word of the employer as to the reasons for dismissal.
As I said before, I maintain this is a most unfair section. Of all the suggestions I have made today I would urge particularly that this section be repealed as quickly as possible. I suggest that the position of women, either married or single, in the labour forces of Canada, and particularly in these times of national stress, is so vital to the economy of the nation that discrimination of this sort is unthinkable.
I would ask that the minister give consideration to all these matters, some of which are current and of great importance, and others of which have been standing for many years. But in each and every one of them there is at this moment a certain element of urgency, and I bespeak his sincere application to their consideration.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to a few of the points discussed by the hon. member for Hamilton West. First of all I would congratulate her upon her speech, and would thank her for the tribute she paid to my predecessor, Hon. Humphrey Mitchell, in which I join heartily. I join with her, too, in saying that many of the things for which he worked hard, and were instituted by him, are now bearing fruit and operating for the benefit of the people of Canada.
The national advisory council on manpower, which I announced in the house in a statement of some length, met in its first meeting shortly after the announcement was made. The object of creating such a body was to have the benefit of direct advice, alongside the indirect advice given in this chamber, from those who work from day to day as leaders in labour organizations, those who employ labour, the women of the country, the veterans and the farmers. The purpose was to give their representatives an opportunity to sit down together from time to time, on call, as may be required, in company with officials of departments such as the Department of Defence Production, the Department of National Defence, my own department and other departments which, while not so keenly interested as the three I have mentioned, still have an interest in the subject of manpower.
I would think particularly of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
The advisory council held a meeting and, as an exploratory first meeting, it was successful; certainly those who attended thought it so. Certain subjects were decided upon for
Supply-Labour
study, and it was arranged that further meetings were to be on call. Following the question the hon. member for Nanaimo asked a few days ago, I learned from Mr. Norman Robertson and Mr. MacNamara that they have sent out notices for a meeting to be held on the 18th and 19th of this month, and longer as may be required.
I can certainly agree with the hon. member in the stress she places on the importance of industrial peace at this time, and the fortunate situation in which Canada has found herself since last September, at any rate, in the way that leaders of labour have been working with management toward industrial peace. So much has this condition obtained that since last September the average number of people on strike in Canada at any given time has been less than 400 workers.
The hon. member said she would not discuss in detail-and indeed she did not-the railway situation which developed last September. However, she did mention the expression "compulsory arbitration", and referred to the fact that that feature of the act which we passed in the short session last fall still remains. If I understood her correctly, that was the meaning of what she said. I believe the real answer is that today that act is as dead as a doornail.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I hope it will never live again.


Milton Fowler Gregg: It is as dead as a doornail, because the things for which it was enacted have been accomplished; it is null and void. So that compulsory arbitration, even in so far as that act is concerned, does not exist at the present time.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, but it would be a
precedent.


Milton Fowler Gregg: The hon. member's observations as to the definition of confidential employment, and her references to uniform labour laws, anti-discriminatory laws, and other suggestions she made so ably in connection with federal labour laws will be given careful consideration.
When it was said that our labour force numbers about 5,200,000 it will be remembered, I am sure, that that includes all the farmers and a great many of those people who are engaged in businesses of their own.
Many of the hon. member's views as to the extension of the advantages of unemployment insurance, in so far as it is possible to do so, are in accord with government policy, and constitute a goal toward which the commission itself is working. When its operations

Supply-Lab our
are being discussed in detail I would be prepared to give my hon. friend some information as to the progress that has been made, arising in some respects from the amendments to the act made a year ago.
I listened attentively to what the hon. member said as to her experience gained from active participation in municipal affairs and municipal government, all of which gave an indication of her close knowledge of that field of public service. I listened, too, to her reference to turning up two reports which only last fall shortly after coming to the department, and in the face of the oncoming federal-provincial convention, I too read with care. I had a notion they might be on the [DOT]agenda. However, as everyone knows, it seemed desirable at the time to confine the discussion of the conference, with the result that those two subjects were not on the agenda. The matter of the responsibility for unemployment was not discussed-not because there was any doubt as to its importance, but rather because it was desired to limit the discussions of the conference to the two subjects which had priority.
I agree that now, in a period approaching full employment, is the time to give full consideration to a subject of that kind. As I read some of the reports of those commissions, I must say that, looking at them in the light of present-day experience I wondered whether to some extent they were not based upon the experiences of the harder days between 1930 and 1940. I say this with full knowledge that I am probably entering in where angels fear to tread, and talking with people who have had much more experience in the matter than I have.
However, as we stand today, I find it difficult to see how there could be a fixed line of responsibility drawn in respect of the unemployed employables as between Canada, the provinces and municipalities. Supposing the great lakes development is carried out? I am thinking of something that was decided the other day and which will more particularly benefit the people of my province, the suggested co-operation between the federal and provincial authorities in forest conservation work. Federal money is to be supplied and there will be co-operation by the dominion with the provinces. I am wondering whether consideration should not be given to co-operation in connection with projects that are worth while without relation to the responsibility of the men who are to take part in the work on them.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Without wishing to interrupt the minister, but just while we are thinking on this subject, the very fact that
tMr. Gregg.] .
at present there is a line drawn by reason of the responsibility accepted by the provinces and the responsibility which they refuse to accept would indicate that it is possible to establish a line.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am not going to develop that any further except to say that it is not being overlooked. If the hon. member will send me particulars of the special cases she has referred to I shall be glad to have them looked into. With regard to married women, the regulations were amended last fall and I should like to make a full statement in connection with this when we are' dealing with the unemployment insurance commission. I can assure the hon. member that there was no intention of discriminating against women under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The advisory committee that was studying this matter felt that the regulations could be improved, but if we have made errors in attempting to improve them I assure the hon. member that we will continue our studies to avoid incurring any hardship.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to suggest to the minister with due deference that he is getting off to a bad start in getting his estimates through by answering each hon. member who may bring problems to his attention. We are dealing with the first item and every time the minister speaks he is bound to provoke other hon. members into making a speech. Having watched the previous minister of labour and other ministers work their estimates through the house I think the proper way to handle them-this would be in the minister's own interests-would be to let everybody talk and then sum it all up.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I say to the hon. member that it is not very often that I am talked to in this house by a lady.


Clarence Gillis: I am not going to attempt to analyse the minister's whole department because every single item in his estimates could involve a forty minute speech if it was analysed completely. I am going to confine my remarks to those things to which I think the Department of Labour should be giving priority at this time.
The Department of Labour is going to be the main mobilization centre both for defence production and for the armed services. According to radio and press reports the Minister of National Defence will shortly be before this house to tell us that the manpower requirements for military purposes have greatly increased and that there is also urgency for them. He cannot get that manpower from any other place in this country

except the industrial set-up, and that means a possible disruption of industry and a lot of headaches for the Department of Labour.
Regardless of the importance of the other departments of government, the Department of Labour is the most important as far as the mobilization of manpower for defence and industry is concerned. The minister has the greatest responsibility in that regard. Unless that responsibility is understood, unless those in charge are able to do the job and understand the job, the industrial set-up of this country will be badly disrupted and shortages will be created for defence purposes.
The first thing I should like to impress upon the minister is that when he announced the appointment of the 28 members of the manpower council and stated to this house that that council was to have the responsibility of looking after the industrial setup, of allocating and re-allocating manpower and advising the minister as to where it could be taken from, I disagreed with the government in the appointments. I did not think the personnel selected were in close enough touch with the industrial workers of this country to be able to advise the minister as to what was or was not essential.
I am not particularly interested in whom industry has appointed to represent them, in who was appointed to represent the women of this country, to represent the Legion and so on. That was the prerogative of the government. If they think the appointments were all right, then they accept that responsibility. But I am interested in the people who have been taken in from labour because in the final analysis that is where you are going to get your real advice.
Let me refer for a moment to the representatives of labour whom the government has selected. I am not saying anything about these men personally. They are the executive heads of different organizations and in so far as they know the problem they will do a good job. As I said when I discussed this matter previously, after six years of war and four years of uncertainty the working people of this country are not going to be pushed around by people in ivory towers in Ottawa. I meant that. I know how the working people feel. Percy Bengough, the president of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, was one appointment. He lives in Ottawa. Another appointment was Pat Conroy, secretary treasurer of the Canadian Congress of Labour, who also lives in Ottawa. Another appointment was Gerard Picard, president of the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, who I presume lives
Supply-Labour
in Montreal although I am not sure. Another appointment was James B. Ward, assistant grand chief engineer and dominion legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and secretary, dominion joint legislative committee of the railways transportation brotherhoods, also of Ottawa.
Men who live in Ottawa and do their work in Ottawa have little conception of what kind of disruption is going to take place in an organization in Windsor or on the west coast. I suggested to the minister that these men were all right in an advisory capacity, but at the time I criticized this particular body I did so on the ground that they were too far removed from the scene of action to be able to say definitely what was going to happen in industry when it was being reconverted for war purposes. They are too far removed from the scene of activity to be able to give you a definite opinion. At that time I suggested to the minister the setting up of industrial councils. When I referred to "industrial councils" I meant that representatives from the industry concerned should be members of such a council. For example, one of the first industries affected by the change-over to war is the auto workers industry. The industry has received orders for vehicles, tank engines, and all that kind of thing. There is a shift taking place now in that industry. Men are being displaced, and so far as the manpower council is concerned nothing has been done to find out exactly what is happening. Overnight 3,500 workers in the Ford plant at Windsor are affected. The shift is putting men on the street. Before that happened the matter should have been discussed with the representatives of the automobile workers union, a large organization. Representatives from Ford, Chrysler and General Motors should have been called in.
They should have been told exactly what percentage of their plants was going to be swung over to war purposes, and they should have been told the number of men affected. They were not, they are stiff in the dark, and that particular type of action is going to continue. In my opinion the auto workers industry is going to be badly disrupted and changed from its peacetime base. When the union representatives visited the government departments for the purpose of finding out what was going to be done with the men laid off they were told that the aircraft industry is going to be expanded. That is quite true. They were told that there will be work in the aircraft industry, but that means that a man living with his family

Supply-Labour
in Windsor is going to have to leave Windsor and go to Toronto or Montreal to work. That will mean maintaining two homes because he is not going to be able to find housing in Toronto or Montreal to which he can move his family. It is going to cost him more to maintain his family and himself apart from them.
Another point is that wages in the aircraft industry are 25 to 30 cents an hour less than in the automobile industry, which is also a very serious problem. These men are highly organized. They have contracts, and they are not going to take kindly to such a move. You can have a disruption there of a type that you will not like unless the problem is settled. If these men are obliged to make a shift they have a right to know where they are going to live, and what is going to happen with respect to the differential in wages. They work under an agreement with the industry. They accept and I accept the necessity for the change, but if we are going to swing over 25 per cent of the plant production of this country to war purposes then organized workers who have contracts will be displaced. They are not unemployed; they are displaced because of the change to war production.
That is an angle that should be discussed with the representatives of the workers affected. In addition, if the manpower council is going to operate as it should, if it is going to seek manpower for military purposes, then it should determine the industries from which it is going to take them. That is not hard to find out because the government has decided to give war orders to certain plants which means they are going to change their assembly lines. Before any decision is made by the manpower council or by the Department of Labour, representatives of the workers involved should be called in, and their contracts should be examined. If you are going to move them you must have places for them to live, and the matter of the differential in wages should be taken care of.
I do not think the quiet manner in which the defence program has been going along will continue for much longer. I do not believe that the developing international situation will permit us to be too complacent much longer, and I believe the tempo of our defence program will have to be stepped up very quickly. As a safeguard against disruption in any plant that is being swung over to defence production, I strongly suggest to the minister that he call in the representatives of the men affected. Instead of the manpower council, what I wanted to see was industrial councils formed, something that

i have suggested for the last five or six years, in the basic industries of the country such as the automobile workers, coal, steel and the packing houses. These industries are very essential to the economy of the country. Industrial councils could be formed so that representatives could come here to discuss a particular industry and what its role was going to be in the defence program for which we are preparing. I am going to leave that with the minister because I think it is the most important thing that his department has to handle at the present time.
There are little odds and ends that I shall bring to his attention. The hon. member for Hamilton West spoke this afternoon about unemployment insurance and all those things. We agree with her and support her representations. There is no need to repeat them. There is another problem in the field of labour relations that I should like to bring to the minister's attention. In Canada today practically every industry has come to the conclusion that a man must work every day. Most industries have inserted in their contracts certain penalties for absenteeism, a thing that is pretty hard to define. I challenge anyone in this house or any industrialist in the country to define absenteeism for me. I have my own definitions. I can give a million reasons why a man might be off work in a particular industry, but the trend to working every day has been pretty highly developed.
This matter affects the Department of Justice. The point I am coming to is that after working for five days the average worker likes to go out on Saturday and take a drink of beer. Many of them commit small infractions of the law. A man may be driving a car, get into a bit of difficulty and wind up with a mandatory seven-day jail sentence. He also loses his licence to drive. For these slight infractions involving the loss of work for a few days-and it happens all over the country-he pays the penalty prescribed by law. That should finish the matter but it does not. When he goes back to his employment again he finds that his employer has also penalized him. He has taken his means of livelihood from him. He says: We do not want you in our employ any longer.
The man was fined or jailed, he paid the penalty prescribed by the laws of the country, and then his employer says: I am sentencing you further; you are not going to work any more. When a man is let out in that way by an employer the only thing left for him is to look for unemployment insurance. When he goes to look for unemployment insurance he ' finds that he is penalized again. They deprive

him of any payments for the first three weeks because the employer fired him, and in some cases he is not paid at all. I have taken up this matter with the Department of Labour. I know that the officials of that department with whom I deal are very flexible in their views. They will stretch the law as far as it will go, but there is a limit beyond which they cannot go. I want the Minister of Labour to inquire from the Department of Justice 'whether an employer, after a man has paid the penalty prescribed by law, can then further penalize him by depriving him of his employment. After a man has paid unemployment insurance since its inception and has never drawn any of it, is it justice to deprive him of it because of a slight infraction of the law? He may have been off work a short time, but should he be penalized in that way? I am not going to elaborate any more upon it, but there are cases of that kind. I have brought them to the attention of the labour department. I should like the Minister of Labour to make some inquiries of the Minister of Justice to ascertain whether an employer has the right, after a man has already served a sentence, to further penalize him. I was always led to believe by the legal minds in my part of the country that it was a statutory offence to deprive a man of his means of livelihood. That is exactly the oosition the employer is taking in the circumstances I have described.
In connection with this matter of unemployment insurance


Mr, Goode:: I should like to ask the hon. member what the unions' point of view is in that case? I am interested in that.


Clarence Gillis: It was a union that brought it to my attention. The secretary of the union wrote to me giving me the names of several people who were affected in that way. He made representations which I passed on to the Department of Labour. The answer from the Department of Labour was far from satisfactory, and it is for that reason I am bringing it to the minister's attention. As a rule, such matters can be ironed out with the labour department.
With regard to unemployment insurance, I should like to mention the problem of the displaced person in the swing-over to war production. For example, the auto worker is fairly well paid. His wage rate is among the highest in industry. All of a sudden, he is told he is unemployed because they are swinging the assembly line over to vehicle production and it will take some time to retool. He will be off work a month, two months or three months. He finds himself
Supply-Labour
without a pay envelope, so he goes to the unemployment insurance office. Now, that man was earning perhaps $90 a week, and that is not unusual in that industry. He finds himself cut down to $14 or $15 per week, and I do not think that man should be penalized in that way. The employer is not suffering any loss. If the government requisitions a plant for war purposes, clauses are written into the contract protecting the industrialist from loss. New equipment is provided, and special depreciation rates and all that sort of thing protect the industrialist. A man whose income is suddenly cut off because of the swing-over to war production should not lose that income. I believe the Unemployment Insurance Act should be revised to cover that particular case so that the man could be paid approximately what he was earning. I believe he is entitled to that. There is about $647 million in that unemployment insurance fund now. There will be a lot of unemployment of that type. The auto workers are affected now, as are the Massey-Harris people, and all the industries that are going to be swung over to war production will be affected. I do not think it is fair to protect the employer against losses and throw the employee out in the street, then ask him to eke out an existence on unemployment insurance until such time as he is placed in employment somewhere else. I want the minister to consider that matter, because I know the auto industry is beginning to be badly affected by it, and I believe it is going to be much worse before very long.
In my opinion the thing to do is to call in the heads of the auto unions. These are sensible men. and the matter could, be discussed with them. An understanding having been arrived at, they would be able to go back and properly advise the employees before a lot of resentment and disruption occurred.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I said I was not going to rehash a lot of things. In conclusion, I should like to say this for the benefit of the member for Hamilton West. She talked about men 45 years of age, but actually it is 40, not being required in industry any longer, and that is correct. She was also right when she said that the reason for that is that industries are providing pensions on. a contributory basis, and they did not want to take in men at that age because they would not contribute long enough to make up for what they might draw out; that is absolutely correct. In my opinion, her solution to the problem was not correct.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I did not offer any solution.

Supply-Labour


Clarence Gillis: You made some suggestions. There is only one solution to that problem, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Hatfield:: Unemployment insurance.


Clarence Gillis: No, unemployment insurance does not cover it. There should be established in this country a contributory retiring allowance handled by the annuities branch of the Department of Labour. I have said that a good many times in this house. In my opinion, the pensions from industry to industry across this country today are a terrific waste of money. Look at the duplication of administration they have. No two industries in this country can provide the same rate of pension. There are hundreds of thousands employed in small industries who will never receive any pension at all. Those industries have not got that kind of money. There will never be any solution to the problem until the federal authorities- in my opinion it has to be the federal authority-confer with the industrialists and show them where they could save a lot of money by contributing now to a central fund handled by the annuities department. This department has the best actuaries in the country with experience in working out plans of this type. It could be handled effectively by centralizing it in Ottawa. In my opinion, this plan would cost 50 per cent less than we are paying today for these other disjointed haphazard schemes that industry is trying to run. We have to work towards that.
The old age pension is fine. It is a patch on this leaky ship that has been sinking for a long time. It is the best we can do, but we are going forward now into a streamlined age. While we may carry on with it as it is, we should start now, not providing a small pension of $40 per month at 70 or 65, but allowing men who are employed in industry to contribute to a retiring allowance that is going to mean something. It should be approximately $100 or $150 a month, something towards which they could contribute in co-operation with the industrialists of this country. With the brains available in the annuities branch, with the money that has been thrown around in some of these other schemes, a real retiring allowance could be established which would cost the taxpayer of this country practically nothing except the administration of it by the federal government. I should like to stress again that it should be a federal matter, because if you get it back to the ten provinces then you have a lot of duplication in administration. Look at the family allowances branch. The cheques go out regularly every month from the federal

government and there are never any complaints about the administration. I believe that a retiring allowance on a contributory basis, directed from Ottawa, would take out of the field of struggle and discussion this old age pension, and all of these things would disappear, at least for the next generation. That is one contribution we should make to them.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Chairman, like some of the others, and particularly the member who has just spoken,, I do not intend to go into this matter in too much detail at the moment. I think probably we can make better progress as the various items come up for discussion. But there are a few general expressions of opinion that I should like to voice on this occasion. For the length of time that the Minister of Labour has occupied that position, I think that generally speaking he has not done too bad a job. He has a big job on his hands. But one thing that has assisted the Minister of Labour more than anything else, I think, was the outbreak of the Korean war. Much as we hate to admit that some of our problems are solved by wars, nevertheless it becomes a fact, whether we admit it or not.
Hon. members will recall that, just before the outbreak of the Korean war, we had about 423,000 registered unemployed; and that is not counting the unemployed who were not registered. But the government itself was not much concerned about it at that time, because it looked to all of us as though that huge unemployment problem would be taken care of in the near future; and it was taken care of. A great many of those men who were then unemployed joined the armed services, and that solved the problem for the moment. But as soon as that war is over-and we all trust that it will be over as quickly as possible-we are going to return to our unemployment problems again. Now is the time when we must make every effort to improve our labour relations so that those problems will not be so serious when they come up again.
I want to speak for a moment or two, Mr. Chairman, about the manpower council that was set up this year. I said at the time I was speaking with regard to the matter that I thought in general it was a good thing. I think so yet. I think it has great possibilities. But like the horn, member for Cape Breton South, I have had complaints with regard to the allocation of workingmen.
Representatives of organized labour from Windsor, from Oshawa and from western Canada have visited us in our offices. One of the complaints which they are making is that there is not the proper co-ordination

which enables men to keep and maintain steady employment. They pointed out to us that there are, both in Windsor and in Oshawa, large numbers of men who are being laid off right now when we are supposed to be at the peak of employment.
They are laid off because the plants have been promised war contracts; and of course the production of commercial vehicles is cut down. But the plants have not yet started the production of military equipment. In fact, the drawings are still on the boards. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South said, it does not make any difference what plans are being inaugurated, or what plans are still on the drawing boards. If these men are not employed, they are facing an extremely difficult situation; and that situation becomes particularly difficult in view of the increasing prices. That situation points to a certain amount of lack of co-ordination with this manpower committee.
Then we have the same situation with regard to the mining industry of western Canada. This has been drawn to my attention in my own constituency, and it is a serious thing for us out in that part of the country. This year we are losing over half a million tons in coal production. That is something which is due largely to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Labour, but not beyond the control of the government. We are still importing huge amounts of coal from the United States, thus doing away with our western market. Then we have the discovery and the use of oil and gas, which is causing the displacement of coal. But regardless of that fact, large numbers of people are becoming unemployed in western Canada owing to the curtailment of mining. I do not want to get into a discussion of the coal mines in this debate, but this situation has a material effect on the Department of Labour. I therefore think it would behoove the Department of Labour to use every means they have at their disposal to insist that the government initiate a complete and comprehensive plan for a national fuel policy so that this labour problem, particularly as it applies to miners in western Canada, will not increase but in fact will diminish.
I want to say a word about compulsory arbitration. I think there are few if any hon. members who agree with the principle of compulsory arbitration. A moment ago the minister pointed out that this idea is as dead as a doornail; I think that is what he said. I think he is right in that respect. I do not know what the government's attitude would be if a similar occasion arose. I suppose we would have to settle the matter when we
Supply-Labour
came to it. But from the standpoint of principle, I am strongly against compulsory arbitration; and I could not express the view half so well as it was expressed in the
Labour Review a short time ago. I think I should put it on Hansard, particularly because it is the view of some labour leaders. The title of this article is "Compulsory Arbitration, a Totalitarian Concept" by the Hon. L. B. S hwellenbach, then Secretary of Labor cf the United States of America. He has this to say about this particular subject:
The principle of compulsory arbitration does violence to our whole Anglo-Saxon concept of law. Many people say that it is customary under our system when two people have a dispute to take that dispute into court and let the court decide which side is right and which is wrong. So far as contractual relations between parties is concerned, it has never been within the purview of the court's power to write contracts for people.
Once contracts have been written and agreed upon the courts will interpret and enforce them, but no court has attempted to write contracts. That is what those who advocate compulsory arbitration would have the board of arbitration or a court do for the parties.
May I interject to say that I think that would be exactly the case if we accepted the general principle of compulsory arbitration. The article continues:
It must also be realized that if an arbitrator writes a contract which, by increase in wages or by any ether device, increases the cost to the employer, it will then be necessary for the arbitrator or for some governmental agency to determine what price the employer may charge for the products which he manufactures and sells. Just as sure as night follows the day the second step mrt follow the first. The government cannot control the industrial-relations side of the problem without controlling all of the ether steps and the manufacture, distribution, and sale of the goods produced. Therefore, these who unwittingly believe that there is a simple answer through the medium of compulsory arbitration have not looked' further down the road which must be followed if such compulsory arbitration is to be effective.
I think almost everybody will agree that that would be the natural result if we were to extend this principle of compulsory arbitration; that there is just no end to government interference all the way down the line of production.
Let me turn to one other subject which has interested me. It was mentioned by the previous speaker. I refer to industrial pensions. I have never thought that an industrial pension was the solution of our working-class problems. I do not yet. The ones, and the only ones, who can benefit are those who are employed in industry and receive that pension; and it must of necessity increase the price of the goods produced.
I like the idea suggested by the hon. member for Cape Breton South. I just forget how he described it, national pensions for all, or something to that effect, retiring
26S8

Supply-Labour
pensions. This is not something new, Mr. Chairman. Just refer to family allowances. We were the first ones in the house to mention them back in 1935. We called them by a different name, but that does not make any difference. We called it a national dividend, and everyone in the house without exception laughed at it and the Liberals laughed at it the loudest. Yet, they were the ones who came around and gave us family allowances. And mark you, lo and behold, when the Prime Minister introduced the bill-and I remember it so well-he used the exact terminology, the exact phrases that we had used in advocating a national dividend. To this day not one Liberal has spoken against the national dividend as it is applied to the family allowances.
Now we have the suggestion of a national pension, with which I am in accord. With regard to a national pension to industrial workers, I am not going to say now that it would be improper to give it. When the family allowances were given I did not say that it was improper to give them to the children. I think that was right. It was a start on the thing that we were advocating. National pensions are a step further in that same direction. I do not see how you are going to confine it just to those who are employed in organized labour, because there are many people in this country who deserve pensions and who are not employed by industry, and who have no possible chance of receiving an industrial pension. And yet, all these people contribute to an industrial pension.
I am a hundred per cent behind the hon. member for Cape Breton South when he advocates a national pension. I think the idea is perfectly sound. We are coming to the time when the country will be forced to do something like that, and it is much better for us to progress. We started out by giving family allowances. All right. Let us go another step further and give national pensions to those people of fifty years of age or over. As time goes on, it will be necessary to continue that, and I shall be most happy when everybody in this country receives a national pension, a national dividend, or whatever you wish to call it.
Some mention was made of unemployment insurance. I have a little experience of the way in which this insurance is applied, and certainly it is not beneficial in all cases. On this occasion I am not going to repeat what has already been said, except to say that in principle I think it is definitely wrong to extract unemployment insurance contributions from employees who have no

possible chance of benefiting under the legislation. Take people who are employed part time in agriculture-and I have case histories of them in my office. I have taken them up with the department in regard to income tax, and other things of that nature. They have to make contributions to the unemployment insurance fund without any possible hope of ever receiving any benefit therefrom. It seems to me that in principle it is definitely wrong and should be changed.
I do not want to prolong this opening discussion. I shall have something to say on the items as they come along, but I thought I should express a few comments on this occasion.


Mr. Cauchon:: On April 17 I called the
attention of the house to industry's reluctance to engage employees who had passed the 45-year mark. The problem of the older workers is one facing most democracies of the world today not only in North America but also in many western European countries. Since that time added information has come to my attention and this new information is so interesting that I think it is my duty to make it known to hon. members now. It concerns the practical measures being considered or put into effect in other countries to cope with this problem, which is becoming more acute as the curve of the average age of workers gets steadily higher.
On page 1 of the report, dated April 11, 1951, issued by Mr. Chester W. Hepler, chief of the manpower division of the international labour office in Geneva, we find the following:
In the first place, many of these countries are faced with the problem of an aging population, which means that the active population includes an increasingly high proportion of workers in the older age groups (over 40 or 45).
When I brought this problem to the attention of the house I enumerated the arguments of some industries and, I believe, in large measure refuted them. In conclusion, as reported in Hansard, pages 2097 to 2103, inclusive, I asked that a committee of the house be set up to study the whole problem.
I am more fully convinced that the matter can be solved only by careful study and research, this research to be carried on by the government with the co-operation of labour and management.
In this respect, let us see what is being done in other countries, namely, Belgium, France, the German federal republic, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Of Belgium, the report has this to say:
The leading article in the "Revue du Travail" of October, 1950, discusses the problem arising out of the aging of the Belgian population. The theme of the conclusions is the need, on behalf of the national economy as well as on behalf of the

workers concerned, to change its increasing practice to reject older workers in favour of young workers.
France too is considering legislation for 1951 to deal with the practice of discrimination against its older workers. Again I quote:
Government Action in Respect of Employment of Older Workers
The following give, briefly, proposed legislation being presently considered by the labour and social security committee of the national assembly, 1951 session:
1.	Proposed law (No. 11,995) that industries employing more than five wage earners should, in engaging such workers, reserve 25 per cent of such engagements for persons over 50 years of age.
2.	Proposed law (No. 11,951) asking private undertakings to draw up a list of occupations which could be satisfactorily fulfilled by women over 50 years of age, and1 a second list of the occupations they could fulfil after an accelerated apprenticeship course.
3.	Proposed law (No. 11,996) that single women of more than 50 years registered in the departmental employment offices should have the right to unemployment benefits.
The committee in its remarks accompanying these proposed laws refers to the difficulty of these workers in finding employment on account of their age and of other associated reasons. It also points out that age statistics of available workers, labour force, indicate that 25 per cent of employment must come from workers between 50 and 65 years.
In the section dealing with the German federal republic under government action, we find:
The Minister of Labour, Saar State, in a statement in January, 1951 offered to pay to enterprises taking on workers over forty-five years, a subsidy out of the unemployment insurance funds to meet the salaries of these workers. This subsidy would be paid during a period of three months to enable the older worker to refresh the vocational skill he lost during a long period of unemployment.
Again, referring to The Netherlands, we find:
The report of the national labour office for the last quarter of 1949 states that, with a view to finding a remedy for unemployment among older workers, the labour office was collaborating with the labour foundation in a campaign to induce employers to employ greater numbers of these workers.
From Switzerland comes the following:
The quarterly bulletin on employment matters, Possibility de Travail, edited by the special official delegate to the Swiss federal government, stated in July, 1950, that while there had been, recently, little difficulty in placing qualified workers in Switzerland, all parts of the country reported that it was becoming more and more difficult to find employment for unskilled or insufficiently trained workers or for middle-aged workers. The writer stated that this was again evidence of the importance of systematic and well planned vocational training.
The same writer in January, 1951, stated in an article entitled "Too Old at 40" (referring to employees in commerce) that work seekers between 40 and 45 years in search of employment are finding it very difficult to get employment. Employers prefer young workers.
Replies to a questionnaire put by the Alliance de Societes Feminines Suisse to several employment placement bureaux, January, 1951, showed that the
Supply-Labour
number of women workers over 40 years unable to get employment had increased markedly during 1950, and that placing them was proving difficult, and very difficult in the case of unskilled women workers.
The employment bureaux stated that they made special efforts to find employment for these older workers. Officials'went personally to employers on their behalf.
The United Kingdom too has concerned itself with this practice of rejecting older workers. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour during the adjournment debate in the House of Commons July 19, 1950, stated:
The seriousness of employment among men aged 51-55 and 56 and over can be seen from the fact that the figures of 12 per cent and 23 per cent, compared with 7 per cent and 11 per cent of the working population. It is hardly surprising then, that the older men remain unemployed for longer periods than the younger men.
In the age group under 40, at December, 1949, 25 per cent had been unemployed for periods between eight weeks and one year, and this proportion rose to 33 per cent for the age group 41-50, 36 per cent for the age group 51-55 and 37 per cent for men over 55. For the same age groups, those unemployed for more than one year represented 6 per cent, 16 per cent, 20 per cent, and 28 per cent respectively.
Government Action
The following information relates to action since the war years and in respect of the employment of older workers generally rather than action in respect of the special problem of the continued employment of workers of retiring age. The ministry of labour report for 1947 stated that the ministry took every occasion offered to appeal to employers not to impose unduly low age limits when engaging staff. The ministry sought the assistance of the association of British chambers of commerce and pointed out that age distribution of the working population was changing and that employers must realize that their staffs will have to include a higher proportion of older men. The association have given wide publicity to this problem.
The ministry of labour report for 1948 referred to consideration of the problem being given by local employment committees. Able-bodied unemployed persons as well as the disabled in United Kingdom, are admitted to courses of industrial rehabilitation under the Training and Employment Act of 1948. The parliamentary secretary in his statement to parliament, July, 1950, quoted statistics to demonstrate the opportunities made by the government to allow older men and women to enter the civil service.
The recognition of this problem by the government along the lines indicated in the above references, has on several occasions been re-stated in the House of Commons during its recent session in 1951. The minister has placed the matter before the national joint advisory council. A social survey to ascertain the views of employers about the employment of elderly workers and the attitude of the elderly workers was undertaken, at the request of the department, by the central office of information last year. The survey is completed and the report on it is being drawn up at present.
Certainly the Minister of Labour will agree that he is the logical one to take the lead in seeking a remedy for this social problem. In other countries it has been the department of labour which has undertaken to find a

Supply-Labour
solution. Since Canada has led the way in many social services I should like to see our country assume leadership in this particular field.
The Minister of Labour has at his disposal experts in all matters pertaining to labour. Of course I do not know the superintendents of the employment offices in the other provinces but I do know Mr. Marcel Guay of Montreal, a man in whom I have the utmost confidence and who would, I am sure, be an asset to such a committee. It can be expected that the other provinces are similarly fortunate in their superintendents. The employment offices of this country gave conclusive evidence of their competency during the last war by their direction and handling of the manpower resources of this country to meet the war's tremendous demands for labour. I again ask the Minister of Labour to consider the setting up of a special committee for the following purposes:
1.	To approach every superintendent of each employment office in all the provinces of Canada and request him to appear before the committee to submit briefs in connection with the situation in his respective province.
2.	To send to each manager of every employment office in Canada an invitation to submit in writing his opinion of this matter of employment of older workers. At a relatively small cost recommendations would thus be received from the men in closest contact with those in this age group who are seeking employment. The committee would then be in position to call before it the managers who seem best able to give information and constructive advice upon the subject.
3.	To call upon labour also to submit through its union leaders, or other representatives chosen by the unions, labour's point of view and counsel.
4.	To request a representation from industry whose recommendations would receive careful consideration.
5.	To solicit the aid of those from our universities who are known specialists in the field of social and industrial relations, or of any other recognized experts in the causes of unemployment, especially experts in the rehabilitation of the unemployed.
Now is the opportune time for the Department of Labour to take action because it appears that industry is more than ever willing to co-operate. Many industrial leaders agree that modern management is not the management of yesterday. Among these is

George K. Foster, whom I quoted in my speech during the budget debate and who states:
Modern management is not just cold industrial efficiency. Modern managers are equally concerned with industry's human relations, with the dignity of man and with the harmonious co-ordination of men and machines.
In addition I am delighted to quote again the encouraging remarks of Mr. F. W. Winspear, president of the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, who surely is in a position to know and reflect labour's attitude. He said:
As we move further into this period of deepening crisis, I believe that Canadian business is ready and alert to assume its leadership which the country has the right to expect of it.
And again:
I believe attention should be directed toward the emergence of a fine new national spirit, the sense of enlightened leadership on the part of the businessmen of Canada.
In view of such statements the committee could feel free to call on these and other industrial leaders to advise and assist it in its work. Although in the past a committee has been appointed representing labour, industry and government, never has a committee of the house been set up to consider this and related problems. If such a committee were set up the government would then be in position to advise the house as to what steps could be taken to alleviate the high incidence of unemployment among older workers. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to give an expression of his views on the subject.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Chairman, I should like fo address a few remarks on the question of the manpower advisory committee. As you will recall, that committee was set up by order in council dated February 1. The Minister of Labour outlined the scope of the work of the committee in a statement to the House of Commons on February 5. He stated at that time, as reported on page 71 of Hansard:
The duty of the council will be to consider various aspects of manpower questions; to advise on plans under review, and to suggest plans which should be developed so as to make for the most effective utilization in the national interest of the present and potential man and woman working force of Canada.
The intention was to have the working personnel distributed among the armed forces, defence production and civilian activities in the most effective manner possible. By coincidence or by design, I know not which, the Minister of National Defence outlined on the same day the defence requirements which were being instituted in order
MAY i. mi
to meet the government's program made necessary by the international situation as it then was. I will not elaborate on those various requirements, but in summing up the Minister of National Defence said, as reported on page 97 of Hansard of February 5:
This whole program involves an increase in the number of service and civilian personnel employed full time on defence from the present figure of about 90,000 to a total of about 148,000.
That is the program, a large one for a country of 14 million people still involved in developing its natural resources and also facing the task of maintaining essential services over an area of 31 million square miles.
That gives some idea of the problems which face this committee. I have a feeling that perhaps the appointment of this committee was prompted by recommendations which were made at the annual convention of the Canadian Legion held in Winnipeg in the previous fall and contained in a brief submitted to the government under the title of "Operation Preparedness." They had placed as the first requisite the need of a review of the manpower situation in the country. In fact they said that nothing could be done to organize effectively manpower in this country until a full scale review of our manpower resources had been made.
I am quite certain that the returned men of this country were delighted to know that the advisory committee which was to make this review was to act under a minister who had only recently given up the portfolio of veterans affairs. The Canadian Legion stressed also that this review would require time in order to obtain information and to interpret the results which would be arrived at. They emphasized that owing to the seriousness of the situation, and because everything else hinged upon this review being made, no time should be lost in making a start to carry out this work. Since last fall, since the time that the statement was made in the house in February, the manpower situation in this country has deteriorated. It has become more critical. We have learned through the papers in the last twenty-four hours, and from the announcement made by the Prime Minister this afternoon in answer to a question of mine, that the Minister of National Defence will be making an important statement this evening regarding the manpower situation and the further needs of national defence. The headlines all across the country of last night and this morning were that there was an appeal going out for thousands of recruits to be called up to our forces. Unless these recruits are going to be drawn in the same old haphazard way, it is essential that a review should be made of our manpower resources.
Supply-Labour
One is amazed that this committee, which was set up on the 5th of February with a great flourish of trumpets, should have only held one meeting in the past three months. I am still further amazed that the Minister of Labour should have announced this afternoon, with a certain appearance of satisfaction, that the next meeting would be called two weeks hence. I have much sympathy with the Minister of National Defence who has been earnestly pleading for recruits, and who apparently has been untiring in his efforts to try to raise the forces which he considers necessary. I wonder whether he has struck the same responsive note amongst some of his colleagues, because the surprising procrastination on the part of the Minister of Labour in summoning the advisory committee certainly would not indicate that there is a firm determination in some other departments to get on with the job of raising men, to assess the real problem and assign individuals to their various occupations. Dangerous delays have already occurred, and if the appeal is going to meet a response throughout the country I am afraid that, as I said a moment ago, it will be a rather haphazard response.
Other speakers have mentioned that the manpower committee appears to be rather overloaded with a majority of high government officials. Apart from the chairman there are at least as many of them as there are from the various other groups in this country. They are centralized in Ottawa and, as the hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out, they may not be in close touch with labour across the country. If these other individuals are only called once every quarter to give advice, the only result will be that they will feel that they are very much of a blind to the government, that no real responsibility is being placed on them, and they themselves will lose heart in the allimportant task that they have been assigned.
I appeal to the minister to start immediately to plan for the orderly employment of workers so that there may be the greatest efficiency and the least disruption of industry. I believe that the first step to be taken is a review of the manpower resources of the country. We are told that the advisory committee examined that problem at their first meeting. They may have been examining it in the various parts of the land in which they live, or the examination may have been left entirely to the government officials here; but I suggest that, in view of the seriousness of the situation as it exists today, there is no time to be lost. We are told that industry is scouring the country for trained workers at the present time. I do not know

Supply-Labour
how much the Department of Labour is doing to train tradesmen. There are a few dominion-provincial schools scattered across the country for the training of men in the various trades.
As a very definite extension of the defence preparations now being undertaken I would urge that the dominion-provincial vocational training schools be expanded, and that in some cases excellent facilities in existence in these schools be made available to the armed forces. In the armed forces there is a very high percentage of tradesmen now, and I think that there is a means of encouraging young men to learn a trade which can be of value both to themselves and to their country. I urge the minister to throw off this rather complacent, happy-go-lucky, business-as-usual attitude, and to have the advisory committee sit at frequent intervals. After he has heard the remarks to be made by the Minister of National Defence tonight I hope he will give instructions to convene the advisory committee sooner than two weeks hence.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in the debate that has developed on the administrative item in the Minister of Labour's estimates. First of all I wish to congratulate him on assuming this very important portfolio. I am sure that he will give equal satisfaction in discharging his duties in this department as in the department he previously headed, and where in my opinion he discharged his duties with considerable distinction. I wish to congratulate him also because in the main since he has taken his new office industrial relations in Canada have been fairly good. He came in at a bad time when the railway dispute was brought forcibly to the attention of parliament and the government. Having got that out of the way, I do not think he has been particularly hard pressed since. I would urge him not to think that these good times are going to last forever.
The conditions that we have had during the war years, and since then, have been such that it was fairly easy to maintain good labour relations. We have been passing through a time of high employment and rising prices; when labour made demands, these demands could, generally, be met. Employers have been able to throw any additional cost onto the community in increased prices. As I said, that may not last forever, and I would hope that it would not last forever if the circumstances that have caused it, that is war, the aftermath of war and then the preparation for another war, are the best that we can do in providing full employment. fMr. Pearkes.]
Over the years governments in Canada, regardless of their political stripe, have been reluctant to put legislation on the statute books to protect labour. Very little, if anything was done to protect labour during the depression years of the 1930's when labour was in a terrible plight. There was a surplus of labour in the market and the employer was in what we might call today a buyer's market. Very little help was given to labour by any government, either Conservative or Liberal, during those years. During the war years when there was a huge demand for labour and there was full employment labour's position improved. War's needs made full employment a necessity and labour could make its power felt by withholding its labour. Then, governments both federal and provincial concluded that labour legislation was necessary.
Compared with the legislation in other countries, the labour legislation we have in Canada today is not too bad. I am not saying that it is good enough or that it is perfect, but in comparison with labour legislation in many parts of the world it is not too bad. I can say that because I had the opportunity last year of attending the international labour conference at Geneva where questions concerning labour legislation were our main agenda. In the matter of conciliation and arbitration legislation, Canada is not too badly off. I made a statement to that effect on my return, and I want to make it again now.
I believe it was the member for Bow River who referred to compulsory arbitration. He was strongly opposed to it. I believe that labour in this country is strongly opposed to compulsory arbitration, but I do not believe we can rule it out altogether unless labour and industry can find a better way of conducting their business.
Although I imagine everyone in this house is opposed to compulsory arbitration, we found when we met here in special session last August that compulsory arbitration legislation was put on the statute books. The disputes between the railways and their employees was referred to an arbitrator, and from his findings there was no appeal. Now, that is compulsory arbitration, but compulsory conciliation is an altogether different matter. It is accepted by both labour and industry in this country, and I think it helps to make for more peaceful settlement of industrial disputes, and for better relations between employers and labour.
I see, Mr. Chairman, that it is about six o'clock, so I shall continue after the recess.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might, with the permission of the house, revert to motions for the purpose of tabling the correspondence, from March 6 up until this afternoon, in both English and French, in connection with the old age pensions constitutional amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this correspondence will be printed as an appendix to Hansard, will it not?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.
(For text of correspondence see appendix, pages 2726-43.)



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, if I might revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement-


Mr. W. A. Robinson (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, before this motion is proceeded with, I wonder if I might be permitted to say a word. As the sponsor of one of the private bills which would ordinarily be taken at this time, I do not in any way wish to refuse unanimous consent for the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) to go ahead with his statement. But if hon. members of the house give unanimous consent to revert to motions at this time, I would hope that later in the session some consideration might be given to the time which we have already lost in private bills hours. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that we gladly gave up an hour a week or so ago in order that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) might present his excellent budget. This evening, if this statement is gone ahead with, we shall lose some more time. I would merely ask at this time that, if hon. members give unanimous consent, later in the session private bills be given some consideration.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, last December the twelve nations who were partners under the North Atlantic treaty decided to set up an integrated force in western Europe to deter communist aggression. General Eisenhower was appointed supreme commander.
As a party to the North Atlantic treaty and in the interest of the defence of Canada,
National Defence
our government indicated in the speech from the throne, that parliament would be asked to authorize Canadian participation in the European integrated force.
In furtherance of this objective, I stated in the house on February 5 that it was proposed, if parliament approved, to place in the integrated force in Europe elements of the Canadian army. The statement went on as reported at page 95 of Hansard:
The force we propose to semi' will initially be a brigade group or regimental combat team, and we hope that it may arrive at about the same time as the additional U.S. forces, but this may depend on events in Korea.
Since then developments in Korea resulted in the decision to send the 25th Canadian infantry brigade group to Korea. The situation in Korea does not warrant any assumption that that formation could be released to form part of the integrated force within a reasonable period.
Keeping our force in Korea up to strength will obviously continue to be the No. 1 army priority so long as any of our troops are engaged in actual combat.
We are further expanding the Canadian army to meet that priority and other army tasks, including, subject to the approval of parliament and the completion of firm arrangements in that regard with our north Atlantic associates, the provision of a force for western Europe.
This expansion will include the formation of an additional Canadian army brigade group with supporting units.
The new formation, to be known as 27th Canadian infantry brigade group, will be recruited around the framework of some of our famous reserve army units. It will be part of Canada's regular forces and its officers and men will serve under active force terms of service and conditions and thus will be eligible for service anywhere.
Fifteen reserve force infantry battalions have been selected on a broad geographical basis, each to sponsor the raising of one and later a second company for the new force. Five highland, five rifle and five line battalions will thus be represented in forming a Canadian highland battalion, a Canadian rifle battalion and a Canadian infantry battalion. Companies will be grouped to form battalions of the active force but will retain their own identity and officers and men will continue to wear the insignia of parent reserve force regiments.
The same principle will be applied to the Royal Canadian Artillery, reserve force regiments combining to raise the units forming the field artillery required in the force. Each

National Defence
battery will represent one of the selected reserve force regiments. Other supporting arms and services for the force will be represented in a similar manner.
The armoured squadron with the new force will be equipped with the latest types of tanks and equipment. The Royal Canadian Dragoons will provide initial armoured support for the brigade. However, certain reserve force armoured corps regiments will participate by providing active force elements which will commence training immediately and can look forward to service abroad. In the meantime, they will retain their unit identity and be attached to the armoured corps regiments of the active force.
The reserve force units participating will be named later in a list which I hope I may have the permission of the house to table.
Every effort will continue to be made to ensure that men will serve in the units or corps of their choice. However, the demands of the service may not always make this possible.
The present plan is that the new brigade group would be available to become a Canadian army component of the European integrated force commanded by General Eisenhower. Since, as I have said, the top priority of the Canadian army overseas is the support of our brigade in Korea, no date can be fixed at present for the dispatch of a brigade group to Europe. That decision will depend on circumstances as they develop, including the course of events in the Korean campaign, the speed with which the required troops are raised and trained, as well as developments in North Atlantic treaty organization.
It is also planned that the force to be raised will, in due course, include units to provide for the periodic rotation of officers and men for duty overseas and in Canada. Our intention is that, as far as possible, individual service abroad will be on the basis of one year for married and two years for single personnel. Though the period of enlistment is for three years, if the military situation permits, officers and men who have completed their period of overseas service and who wish to return to civil life may claim their discharge.
These new regular units will be encouraged to maintain the closest association with the reserve force regiments from which they have been formed. The parent units in the reserve force will continue to form part of our defence organization.
In addition to the rotation of individuals, it is intended, as a long-term plan, that complete companies or other formations will be

exchanged from time to time, not only from the units named but other units, thus giving every major reserve unit a considerable number of additional fully trained officers and men with the experience of service in the integrated forces of the North Atlantic treaty organization.
In appealing for the special force for Korea I said, "We must meet aggression with trained united strength." Expanding the Canadian army in this way is part of the effort of our country and of our allies to prevent war and preserve peace. Trained united strength is needed to prevent aggression.
The appeal for the special force last August and September received a very good response. Since then the rate of recruiting for all three services has met requirements. To meet our needs we now want additional men. Recruiting will begin Monday. Application should be made to any of the units named or to any of the regular recruiting depots.
Reserve force units participating by raising a company, battery, troop or other sub-unit entirely by voluntary means:
From British Columbia
The British Columbia Regiment (Duke of Connaught's Own), Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Vancouver, B.C.
The British Columbia Dragoons, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Kelowna, B.C.
The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada, Vancouver, B.C.
The Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Mary's), Victoria, B.C.
From the Prairie Provinces
The King's Own Calgary Regiment, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Calgary, Alta.
The Fort Garry Horse, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Winnipeg, Man.
39th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, Winnipeg, Man.
6th Field Engineer Regiment, Royal Canadian Engineers, Winnipeg, Man.
33rd Field Park Squadron, Royal Canadian Engineers, Lethbridge, Alta.
The Royal Winnipeg Rifles, Winnipeg, Man.
The Regina Rifle Regiment, Regina, Sask.
The Loyal Edmonton Regiment, Edmonton, Alta.
From Ontario
The Governor General's Horse Guards, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Toronto, Ont.

11th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, Guelph, Ont.
29th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, Toronto, Ont.
48th Highlanders of Canada, Toronto, Ont.
The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, Toronto, Ont.
The Royal Hamilton Light Infantry (Wentworth Regiment), Hamilton, Ont.
The Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment, Belleville, Ont.
The Algonquin Regiment, Kirkland Lake, Ont.
7th Canadian Field Ambulance, Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, Toronto, Ont.
1st Canadian Provost Company, Canadian Provost Corps, London, Ont.
From Quebec
Le Regiment de Trois-Rivieres, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Three Rivers, P.Q.
Le Regiment de Hull, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Hull, P.Q.
6th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, Levis, P.Q.
34th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, Montreal, P.Q.
The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada, Montreal, P.Q.
Victoria Rifles of Canada, Montreal, P.Q.
Les Fusiliers Mont-Royal, Montreal, P.Q.
9th Canadian Field Ambulance, Royal Canadian Army Medical Corps, Montreal, P.Q.
1 Intelligence Training Company, Canadian Intelligence Corps, Montreal, P.Q.
From the Maritimes
The Halifax Rifles, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Halifax, N.S.
8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick) Hussars, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Sussex, N.B.
The Prince Edward Island Regiment, Royal Canadian Armoured Corps, Charlottetown, P.E.I.
14th Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Artillery, Yarmouth, N.S.
The North Nova Scotia Highlanders, Amherst, N.S.
The Carleton and York Regiment, Fredericton, N.B.
7th Infantry Division Field Park, Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps, Halifax, N.S.
From Newfoundland
56th Independent Field Squadron, Royal Canadian Engineers, St. John's, Nfld.
National Defence
In addition there will be:
Training regiments and squadrons of the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals from all military commands to be assembled for training at Barriefield, Ont.
Technical regiments and squadrons of the Royal Canadian Electrical and Mechanical Engineers from all military commands to be assembled for training at Barriefield, Ont.
Units of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps from all military commands to be assembled for training at Camp Borden, Ont.
In this way the reserve army will again be taking a great part in strengthening the defence of Canada. They deserve every possible support from every Canadian.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, I realize there should be no extended discussion at this stage, but so important has been the statement made by the minister that I would crave the privilege of the house to make a few remarks, and to ask a question. I feel quite certain that the servicemen in the army of Canada will feel relieved to know that this force will be centred around the old historic reserve army units, and that units from all parts of this country will be assigned the task of recruiting component parts of this 27th infantry brigade group.
There has been anxiety during the recent months as to how far the Americanization of the Canadian forces would go. I realize that certain equipment and arms must be based upon American standards. There has been a fear that that Americanization might be extended to the actual organizations; but the statement, made by the minister this evening will go a long way to relieve that anxiety in the country.
The minister was not able to indicate the date target, shall we say, when this force would be ready, but I presume from what he has said that recruiting is to start immediately-


Brooke Claxton: Monday.


George Randolph Pearkes: On Monday. I am not quite clear, when he said that recruiting would be through the various companies of the designated units, whether men would enlist for this force as a special force, although he did say that they would go into the active army. If a man enlisted into one of the units of the 27th brigade and the situation deteriorated in Korea and reinforcements were required for Korea, could a man be transferred from a unit of the 27th brigade to a unit of the 25th brigade as a reinforcement for Korea? I should like to have an indication as to the extent to which these transfers might be made.
270G

National Defence
I do not know whether the minister is in a position to say at this stage whether the 27th brigade would also form part of a commonwealth division in Europe, or whether it would be absorbed into the organization of some other formation. That would be a point which we would be interested to hear if the minister is in a position to give that information at the present time.
No doubt there will be opportunities for further discussion when the minister brings down his estimates, which I understand is to be in the very near future. Until that time comes I feel that it is unwise to make any further remarks.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate thoroughly the co-operative attitude of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), who I must say is one of the most gallant soldiers Canada has ever seen. I am not going to say more than a word. In order to do this rather tremendous job of providing the forces required to meet our country's need at this time we are all going to have to get together, and the co-operative support of the members of the opposition will be needed. This is a Canadian job, not a government job.
With regard to the question of the position of the people joining this force, they are joining the Canadian army, just as the people who joined the special force joined the Canadian army. There is only one Canadian army today. Some of them joined for different periods, but they all joined the Canadian army and are available for service anywhere. Our hope is that they will be available to make the best possible defence not only of Canada's cause but of the cause of freedom wherever it may be served.


Mr. Harkness:: The minister said this force would consist of a brigade group with supposing units. I wonder what he meant by "supporting units",, because the general meaning of a brigade group includes artillery, engineers, army service corps, RCEME, and other personnel ordinarily associated with a brigade group. Would the minister elucidate that point?


Brooke Claxton: The list placed on Hansard
makes it clear. It goes on to indicate intelligence, provost corps, RCEME, and so on.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not mention
the number of men who would be required for the new force, or for the Canadian army generally. Would he give us those figures and also tell us what form the approval of parliament for the dispatch of troops to Europe will take. Will there be a resolution, or in what form will it be?


Mr, Claxion:: In answer to the first question, it is not usual to give the establishment

or the strength of units overseas. I think everyone knows however that a brigade group of the kind described means from 5,500 to 6,500 men. It is a self-contained unit, about one-lhird of a division.


Howard Charles Green: Are there additional men to
be raised for the army?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: How m-any?


Brooke Claxton: With regard to the way in
which parliament would give its approval to the dedication of this force for overseas, I would say that is a matter for the government and the Prime Minister. It will require some subsequent action by parliament before it is done. Perhaps it will require the tabling of an order in council, as was done in the case of the Korean force, or something like that. But it will not be done before it comes before parliament again.


Howard Charles Green: I understood the minister to
say additional troops would be raised over and above the men to go to Europe. What additional number will he require?


Brooke Claxton: We are going on recruiting
steadily-and doing very well, too. We are building up forces, both for reinforcements in Korea, and for the building up of our armed forces in Canada, as well as for this force.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 131, respecting a certain patent application of George R. Hanks'-Mr. Richard (Ottawa East) -Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Application deemed to have contained request for extension.
Mr. Browne (St. John's Wesl):: Mr. Chairman, may we have a copy of the bill.


The Deputy Chairman:: I should point out, for the benefit of the hon. member for St. John's West, that this bill was referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, received careful consideration there, and is now reported back to the house. Copies of the bill are available at the table. If the hon. member does not have a copy, someone will see that he is given one.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Look in your file and you will get it.


Howard Charles Green: Would the sponsor explain why it was necessary to put the applicant for this private bill to all the expense and inconvenience of coming to parliament in a matter of this kind? Was it because of some error

made in the patent office, or why do we have this unusual situation of an individual having to come to parliament for a private bill in order to get for himself the full protection of the Patent Act. It does not seem reasonable that that should have been necessary.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: In 1947 parliament passed an amendment, section 28A of the Patent Act, to allow applicants, from foreign countries which afforded similar privileges, to file applications for patents, even though the normal time for filing had expired. The deadline set was November 15, 1947.
As the hon. member will see in the explanatory note to the bill, the section was drawn so that there were some prerequisites, among which was the one that the application should be filed before November 15, 1947, and should be accompanied by a request, in the form of an ordinary letter, saying, in effect, "I want to have the benefit of section 28A".
It is self-evident that the applicant wanted to have the benefit of section 28A, because he knew he was delinquent. He was taking advantage of the new section passed by parliament. But in his letter to the Commissioner of Patents he stated merely that he was filing an application for a patent and did not add the paragraph, "I want to take advantage of section 28A of the Patent Act".
That is the only point in the bill. The Commissioner of Patents held that since that was one of the conditions set out in the section, he had to refuse the application. It seems unfortunate, and certainly it has involved heavy expense to the applicant. However, the commissioner having held that That condition was essential, there was nothing left to do but to come to parliament and ask for a bill to overcome this difficulty.


Howard Charles Green: The Secretary of State is here this evening. Surely there should be some provisions in the Patent Act giving the Commissioner of Patents, the Secretary of State, or perhaps the governor in council power to deal with a situation of this kind. Here we have an individual who should have had to pay only $25 to have the registration put through; but because he left out a formal statement to the effect that he wanted to have the extension of time, he is put to all this expense of coming to parliament.
I do suggest there is something very wrong either in the act, the regulations under the act, or in the administration, when an individual is put to that expense. I should like to know whether other people have been turned down for similar reasons. There may be others who have been unable to get this
Private Bills
protection because their applications have been refused, and who are not in a position financially to incur the great expense of getting a private bill put through parliament.
I think this is a case of driving a tack with a pile-driver. I wonder if the Secretary of State could explain why it has been necessary to take this step?


Mr. Bradley:: Parliament in its wisdom
did not succeed in covering every possible eventuality. This is the first occasion on which this has been brought to my attention and I shall be glad to look into it to see if 1here have been any who have been prejudiced in any way, and consider the question as to whether we should not look into the matter further.


Mr.   Gre@: If that is the situation some
arrangement should be made so that this applicant will not be compelled to pay the fee for getting through a private bill. It does seem to me most unfair that he has been put to all this trouble and expense.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. A. F. Macdonald (Edmonton East) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 175, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Western Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I would point out
that this bill has been carefully considered in the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
On section 11-Investment of funds.
William Joseph Browne: There would seem to be something wrong with this section, which reads:
The corporation may Invest Its funds, or any portion thereof, either directly in the name of the corporation or indirectly in the name of trustees, in the purchase of such securities as it may deem advisable, and also may lend its funds or any portion thereof on any such securities.
I was appointed a member of the committee on miscellaneous private bills, but after attending the first session I did not attend later sessions of the committee. While I

Private Bills
was present in the committee a bill of this kind was being considered and the point was raised that frequently corporations of this kind are given money in trust and that they should not have the right to invest such money in any securities that they wish to. It seems to me that they should be bound by the trust and be permitted to invest only in trustees' securities. I do not know if this matter has since been considered by the committee, but it seems to me that this committee should not overlook the obligation which would be on any corporation given money in trust to invest only in trustees' securities. Could the sponsor explain this?


Albert Frederick Macdonald: The
terms of this section are the same as the terms in sections in bills with reference to the incorporation of other religious groups. Being a moral body I feel quite sure that the adherents to this church will give the same consideration to the investment of their funds as do the adherents of any other religious denomination.


William Joseph Browne: That does
not answer the point. If the sponsor of this bill should leave $1 million in trust to this corporation to be invested for certain purposes, would the corporation have the right to invest those funds in any securities? They might buy the wildest kind of stock. It seemis to me that some explanation should be given by those who are bringing forward this bill as to why they wish such wide powers which would deviate so seriously from the provisions of a trust under which they might receive money.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the section carry?


William Joseph Browne: Do you not
think that the point is worthy of consideration and that we should have a better explanation than we have had from the sponsor of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


William Joseph Browne: I am not
satisfied.


An hon. Member:: We are.


William Joseph Browne: If this and similar organizations are likely to receive large sums of money in trust for certain purposes they should not have the power to invest in any securities they feel like investing in. Surely there must be a reasonable explanation that can be given.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. H. P. Cavers (for Mr. Ross, Hamilton East) moved: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 176, to incorporate the Ukrainian Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Eastern Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Louis-René Beaudoin: This bill has been considered carefully by the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Donald MacInnis: I do not see the sponsor of the bill in the chamber. Last Tuesday evening we had quite a discussion on this point. I was in favour of going on with the bill, but Mr. Speaker ruled that a private bill could not proceed unless the sponsor was present. At that time we were considering one of the pipe line bills and it had to stand. I think we shall have to do the same thing with this bill.


Harry Peter Cavers: I am substituting as sponsor for the hon. member for Hamilton East.


Howard Charles Green: The other night the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was substituting for the sponsor of that bill, yet a ruling was made that the debate could not go on because the sponsor was not here. Now we have got exactly the same position tonight.


William Alfred Robinson: On the point of order, as I understood the ruling of last Tuesday evening it was that if the sponsor was not in the house the bill could not be proceeded with without his consent. As I understand, the hon. member has indicated that he has the sponsor's consent this evening.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Mr. Chairman, I should also like to speak to this point. If you will check you will see that the ruling was most definite. The Speaker made the definite statement this procedure would not be allowed in the future. If you will check you will see that is absolutely correct. The Speaker himself said that.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have not before me yet the ruling made by Mr. Speaker. I understand it was made on the motion for second reading of this bill. If my memory serves me right, perhaps not on the occasion referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra but on some other occasion, I think the Speaker indicated that a bill could not be proceeded with if the sponsor was not here. But it would seem to me that as long as a representative of the sponsor is here,

we may proceed. The point of order should have been raised when the motion was made for the Speaker to leave the chair on this bill. I now have before me the ruling which was made by Mr. Speaker the other day, and which was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. It is to be found at page 2579 of Hansard. At that time he said:
... I will say that I have always considered that a private member who is sponsoring a bill stands in the same position as a member of the government who introduces a bill in the house. As hon. members know, when a government bill is introduced, it is introduced by a minister. There may be an amendment to that bill introduced by a private member. The discussion either on the bill or on the amendment does not proceed without the consent of the minister who introduced the bill. Why should a private member not stand in the same position? That has been the attitude that I have taken, and although I realize that it might appear that an injustice is being done, nevertheless I feel that I should not change the ruling which I made on Friday, .Tune 23. It has been said that the bill is now in the possession of the house, and that the amendment is in the possession of the house. That is so, and neither the amendment nor the bill can be withdrawn without the consent of the house. That also would be true of a bill introduced by a member of the government. A member of the government could not without consent withdraw his bill once it is in the possession of the house. As I say, I have given considerable thought to this. I think the rules of procedure might be amended. Until they are amended I feel I must abide by my ruling which I made on June 23, and allow the bill to stand.


Howard Charles Green: May I refer Your Honour to Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday the first of May, page 323. There we find the following:
The order being read for resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Robinson for the second reading of Bill No. 118 (Letter N-l of the Senate), intituled:	"An act to incorporate
Border Pipeline Corporation," and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Herridge;
A point of order having been raised by Mr. Benidickson to the effect that in the absence of the sponsor of the bill, the order should not be proceeded with.
Mr. Speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
In that case there was actually an amendment and the mover of the amendment was in the house. Nevertheless Mr. Speaker still ruled, as set out in. Votes and Proceedings-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Would the hon. member repeat the page number?


Howard Charles Green: Page 323. The Speaker's ruling was:
A point of order having been raised by Mr. Benidickson to the effect-
These are the key words:
-that in the absence of the sponsor of the bill, the order should not be proceeded with.
Mr. Speaker ruled the point of order well taken.
That is clearly the case here.
Private Bills


Louis-René Beaudoin: There is no doubt that in the instance referred to by the hon. member it is a clear case where the ruling of Mr. Speaker applies in the manner which I quoted a moment ago. However, if I remember correctly, in the debate on the second reading of the bill the hon. member was already the representative of the member whose name appears on the bill as the sponsor. He gave replies to hon. members who participated in the debate. Therefore the house has already accepted the hon. member for Lincoln as the acting sponsor of the bill. He was acting in that capacity when second reading of the bill was proposed. If my memory is not correct on that point perhaps the hon. member for Lincoln and others might correct me. If my memory serves me right, however, it was the hon. member for Lincoln wlio acted on behalf of the hon. member for Hamilton East when the bill was piloted through second reading. Therefore he was accepted by the house at that time. No point of order was raised, and he is here tonight to reply to questions which may be asked in committee. Therefore I would say that this instance is not exactly similar to the one that Mr. Speaker had to deal with the other day.


Howard Charles Green: Before you make your ruling, may I submit further on the point of order that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was just as much acting for the sponsor of the Border Pipeline Corporation bill as the hon. member is doing tonight on this measure now under consideration. Where one member happens to speak for another member on one day and no objection is raised on that particular day, surely the house is not going to be put in the position that it must, while the bill continues before it, accept the sponsorship of that acting sponsor. There is a very good reason why the sponsor should be here. He is the one man who should be able to explain the terms of the bill.
When this particular bill was before the house the other night it was with the Speaker in the chair, and we could not ask questions. Now we are at the committee stage when questions can be asked, and I suggest that if any member raises a point of order that the sponsor should be present that point of order cannot be simply brushed aside with the statement that a week ago, or two or three weeks ago, there was an acting sponsor, and because the point of order was not raised then it cannot be effectively raised tonight. I submit that Your Honour is bound by the very definite ruling made by the Speaker this week after quite an argument on the point of order, and after the Speaker had taken some time to consider the matter. He made the very definite ruling that unless the

Private Bills
sponsor is here a private bili cannot be proceeded with. I suggest if Your Honour makes a contrary ruling tonight it is going directly against the ruling the Speaker made on Tuesday evening.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Perhaps at this point I should refer hon. members to the first ruling to which Mr. Speaker alluded in making his ruling the other night. It appears at page 570 of Journals of the house.


Howard Charles Green: What year?


Louis-René Beaudoin: June 23, 1950. In the third paragraph hon. members will notice this:
Presumably, at times bills have been proceeded with when the honourable members who introduced them were not in the chamber, but in such instances some member has stated that he has the approval of the member who introduced the bill to proceefi.
If the hon. member for Lincoln states he has the approval of the hon. member for Hamilton East to proceed, I would be within the ruling of Mr. Speaker on that occasion. Furthermore, in my humble view, I would say that the point of order should have been raised on the motion for Mr. Speaker to leave the chair, and not at this stage. I believe hon. members should have brought to the attention of the house then that the sponsor of the bill was not present, and reminded Mr. Speaker of the ruling which was referred to a moment ago by the member for Vancouver East and the member for Vanccuver-Quadra. If reliance is to be placed on the sentence which I quoted in the ruling of Mr. Speaker of June 23, 1950, it is clearly in ordrr for the member for Lincoln, provided he assures the house again that he has the authorization of the sponsor to represent him on this bill, to proceed.


Harry Peter Cavers: When this bill was given
first reading I was asked by the member for Hamilton East to appear for him when the matter came before the house. On second reading, I again appeared as acting representative for the member for Hamilton East. At that time 1 was asked by members of the house to explain the bill, and I endeavoured to do so. It was accepted at that time. Now the matter is in committee stage, and I still appear representing the member for Hamilton East, with his permission and consent.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Having heard the hon. member for Lincoln state he has the consent and authorization of the sponsor at this time to represent him, I would say that it is in order to proceed with the bill. In order to make sure that there is no difference in the view I express now and the one expressed by Mr. Speaker, I shall quote again
TMr. Green.]
his ruling of June 23, 1950, starting with the paragraph I just quoted and then giving his conclusions.
In the third paragraph he says:
Presumably, at times bills have been proceeded with when the honourable members who introduced them were not in the chamber, but in such instances seme member has stated that he has the approval of the member who introduced the bill to proceed. The honourable member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has referred to the Speech from the Throne, but it is assumed in that debate that the mover and the seconder approve of the debate continuing. If for any reason that debate were not to be continued I would think that arrangements would be made and that the house would be informed accordingly.
I do not think I should depart at this time from practice and allow the debate on this bill to continue in the absence cf the honourable member who introduced1 it and of the minister who moved the amendment. I therefore rule that under our practice an order for resuming the adjourned debate on the second reading of a private member's bill is proceeded with only at the instance of the sponsor of the bill or of a member authorized to act on the sponsor's behalf.
I believe that clearly sets out that we are in order, now that the statement has been made by the hon. member for Lincoln that he is authorized to act on the sponsor's behalf.


Howard Charles Green: That is on an entirely different point, and I see that on that occasion I was the one who raised the point of order. No one was objecting to the acting sponsor. The whole point of order tonight has been an objection to the acting sponsor, and the ruling of the Speaker on Tuesday last was to the effect that a sponsor must be present. Why should a member be allowed to sponsor a bill, and then stay out of the house while it is being considered, and have some other member act on his behalf? If a member of this house spon'sors a private bill he should be here to answer questions about it, and not allow some other member to try to answer the questions for him. I submit that His Honour's ruling on Tuesday was on that particular point, and it is that particular point which is being raised tonight.


William Alfred Robinson: I am afraid that the member for Vancouver-Quadra is under a misapprehension as to the ruling the Speaker made on Tuesday evening. I believe that tonight we are faced with an entirely different situation. As I understand, on Tuesday night the member for Kenora-Rainy River, in my absence and on my authorization, asked that the bill which I was sponsoring be allowed to stand. In other words, I had not given my consent to the bill being proceeded with at that time. The Speaker ruled that the bill could not be proceeded with without the consent of the sponsoring member, not because the sponsoring member was absent from the house.

in support of that contention I would direct your attention to a paragraph from the Speaker's ruling of June 23, 1950, in which the Speaker said:
I have never known of a private bill or of a public bill which has been introduced by a private member being proceeded with in his absence and without his consent.
I think the important words there are "without his consent", and as I understand the ruling of the Speaker on Tuesday evening it was that since I had not given my consent the bill must stand. This evening, therefore, we are faced with a different situation because apparently the sponsoring member does consent to the bill being proceeded with.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
whether the house is bound by the minutes as recorded in Votes and Proceedings or by the statement in Hansard, because they seem to be contradictory.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The Journals of the house constitute the authority so far as the rulings are concerned. It is getting close to nine o'clock, but my view at the moment certainly leads me to declare that it is in order to proceed with this bill.


Howard Charles Green: In view of the definite statement in the finding contained in Votes and Proceedings to the effect that in the absence of the sponsor of a bill the order should not be proceeded with, may I ask, Mr. Chairman, that you consult with the Speaker on the point before proceeding.


Louis-René Beaudoin: By referring to
the ruling of Mr. Speaker of June 23, 1950, from which I have quoted the pertinent extracts, it is clear that if an hon. member is authorized by the sponsor of the bill to represent him at any stage of the discussion of the bill, it is in order to proceed.


George Alexander Cruickshank: It is nine o'clock, and I move the adjournment of the debate.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall I report
progress?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Section stands.
Progress reported.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OP LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
185. Departmental administration, $558,397.
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to continue the remarks I was making when the committee adjourned for the dinner
Supply-Labour
recess at six o'clock. I had made some reference to compulsory conciliation and compulsory arbitration. I pointed out that compulsory conciliation is a fundamental part of Canada's labour legislation. There is, I think, a feeling in some quarters that the purpose of the provisions of our compulsory conciliation legislation is to allow what is called a cooling-off period so that "rash" trade unionists or perhaps "irresponsible" trade unionists will not do something irresponsible or something rash.
Personally, I prefer to think that there is a better principle than that behind the legislation. I believe that the legislation rests on the principle that industrial disputes are not merely matters that concern labour and employers. I am convinced that industrial disputes concern more than labour and employers and that contention is well demonstrated in the industrial dispute that brought us here last fall.
Industrial disputes today concern the community; and I believe that the compulsory conciliation legislation rests on the principle that the community is involved in any strike or lock-out because such actions affect the community. The government, as spokesman for the people of Canada, says that employers and organized labour cannot be allowed to deal with matters of this kind as if they were the only people concerned; it says that there is a community interest and that it is going to see to it that, as far as possible, the community interest is protected. There are, therefore, various stages which a dispute must go through before a strike or lock-out takes place. When these are finally complied with, and if a settlement has not been arrived at, a strike may take place. These procedures perhaps serve the purpose of providing a cooling-off period; but they also serve the purpose of getting employers and employees together, in a good atmosphere, to talk over their differences. That is a good thing. Not many disputes end in strike action after they have gone through our procedure of conciliation.
There is something else I should like to say. It will be forty-one years this summer -within a month or so-since I first became connected with the trade union movement; and I have been fairly closely associated with it ever since, even although for the last twenty years I have not been engaged in an occupation in which I had to carry a union card. People whose experience with labour matters dates back to, say 1929 or a little earlier-and I imagine there are quite a number of them in this committee-have no realization of the improvements that have taken place in the status of trade

Supply-Labour
unions in Canada during the last forty years, and more particularly during the last ten years. As I mentioned before, the reason that the progress was made during the last ten years is that organized labour was in a position in which it seldom finds itself except in wartime, namely, that of full employment. Consequently, when its services are urgently required by the country, it can improve its position by withholding its labour, which up until now at least, had been its ultimate weapon of defence and offence.
I have seen an employer refusing to deal with a trade union because the trade union had international connections; that is, it was connected with a trade union in the United States. And I have seen the same employer refusing to deal with the trade union because it did not have international connections. Any pretext at all was used to avoid recognizing the trade union movement and entering into collective agreements. When I first became connected with the trade union movement employers, by and large, took the position that they were going to run their businesses in their own way and that they were not going to be interfered with by a bunch of irresponsible trade unionists.
As far as I know, there is only one way of developing responsibility and that is by giving responsibility. If a person has nothing to be responsible about, he can be irresponsible. But the moment that he is put in the position in which certain events hang on his actions, he will be much more careful how he acts. Over the last fifty years we have built up in Canada a trade union movement which is today a great asset to the country. In it are men of experience, understanding and responsibility. I should like to see this government take more advantage of their experience than it has taken heretofore. Every year the organized labour movement through its various sections, makes submissions to the government as to the legislation that it would like to see enacted. It should be noted that nearly all of this legislation refers not to the trade union movement itself but to the community at large. That is, of course, all to the good because it means that the organized labour movement is extending its horizons from its own immediate affairs and is realizing that it cannot prosper unless the whole community prospers.
I mentioned the fact that the national bodies of organized labour each year make submissions to the government. I should like to look forward to the day when the government would not only receive organized labour when it comes to make its submission, but would send for organized labour and

ask it to give its views on the important questions of the day. When that day comes, I believe that our democracy will have advanced far beyond what it is today. However, under the conditions that we have today where labour is considered a commodity-if it is not considered that in theory; it is considered so in fact-and where a person has access to the means of life only so long as he can sell his labour, a position in which most of us find ourselves, when he is unemployed, even with unemployment insurance, for any lengthy period of time, his position and the position of his family are difficult indeed.
I think we have come to the time-perhaps we have not heard much about it yet, but there has been some talk about it- when instead of the daily wage, the hourly wage, the weekly wage or the monthly wage, workers will have an annual wage, so that they will know from one year to the next where they stand. Why should a railroad man, a street railway employee or a longshoreman or a lumber worker not have an annual wage as well as a bank manager, a railroad executive, a bank employee, a school teacher, a university professor or any of the numerous people who have annual wages or an annual salary. I think that we have to prepare ourselves for greater advances in that regard than we have seen heretofore.
The matter of unemployment insurance was raised today, and I want to say just a few words about it. One of the things that the government should do in regard to uniemployment insurance is to tell the people more about it. They should do a better job of public relations in the matter of unemployment insurance than they are doing. As a matter of fact, in this house where one would expect a higher level of intelligence or understanding on questions of this kind than you may find generally among the community, since it is one of our jobs to deal with the matter, not enough is known about our unemployment insurance. It was mentioned that a person pays into the unemployment insurance fund and never takes anything out of it. Well, if everyone who paid into the unemployment insurance fund took something out, or took out what he paid in, the unemployment insurance contributions would have to be very much larger than they are today.
The principle of insurance is that you take something out provided that what you are insured against happens; and if that does not happen you consider yourself lucky. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says if you take out fire insurance on your

house, generally you consider yourself fortunate if you never draw any insurance- that is never have a fire. The same thing is true of automobile accident insurance. You consider yourself fortunate if you never have to call on the insurance company for payments in connection with an accident. Unemployment insurance is insurance for involuntary unemployment. In that regard I believe that the procedure could be considerably improved. May I point out something that may not be known by hon. members, and perhaps some will not believe it, particularly on the government side of the house. Like almost everything else that we get from this government, we got unemployment insurance not because they believed in it as a good thing socially; we got it in 1940 because prices were going up. It was instituted more to stemv inflation than as a piece of desirable social legislation. The reason I say that is this. The trade union movement had been advocating unemployment insurance for thirty years before it was put on the statute books. Mind you, there were many, many occasions when unemployment insurance could have been very useful. In the 1930's governments said they could not bring unemployment insurance in because they did not have the money. That applied to the Conservatives as well as to the Liberals. They were like the man who when he was asked why he did not shingle his house said that he did not shingle it because it rained. He was then asked why he did not shingle it when it was not raining, and he said when it did not rain it did not leak. That was the attitude and I am very much afraid it is still the attitude.
I believe that unemployment insurance should be extended to every worker, at least to every worker who is working for an employer. It was said today, and it was said in the house the other evening in another debate, that the labour force in Canada is
5.200.000.	May I say that 5,200,000 includes not only what we refer to generally as workers, but it includes employers as well. I hold in my hand the unemployment insurance report for the year ended March 31, 1950. I believe it is the last one that has been distributed, and it gives the labour force as
5.200.000.	But, as I said, that includes employers to the number of 226,000; unpaid family workers to the number of 306,000. Also included in that figure are own-account workers to the number of 941,000. That makes a total of 1,473,000. It would be rather difficult to include that million and a half approximately in an unemployment insurance scheme such as ours. But there are wage earners to the number of 1,097,000 who
80709-173J
Supply-Labour
are not insured. I believe that those wage earners should be insured, and that insurance should be paid to everyone who is out of work for reasons beyond his own control and who has fulfilled certain conditions.
I am not going to express an opinion as to whether present conditions are satisfactory or not, but as long as our unemployment insurance is on an actuarial basis we shall have to give consideration to the number of contributions and so on. I do not know that there is anything further I have to say. There are a dozen questions that could be discussed and that, perhaps, if they are raised, I shall have something to say about. But I shall conclude at this time by impressing upon the minister that his department or the unemployment insurance commission should make a better job of public relations with the unemployment insurers, so that those who are insured may know exactly what they are entitled to, and what they are not entitled to. I find there is a great deal of misunderstanding on that point.
It would be well to visit trade union meetings, or to have representatives of the commission go to those meetings, and to have posters in trade union halls and in the offices of trade union organizations; because the more people understand about their affairs- and unemployment insurance is their affair- the better for all, and the more easily those affairs can be administered.


Mr. Higgins:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to debate this matter generally, but rather to draw the minister's attention to a few specific items. First and foremost I would speak about unemployment insurance for fishermen. Various classes and categories of workers have been discussed this afternoon and this evening, and I would now direct the minister's attention to the case for the fishermen.
The matter has already been discussed briefly this session by the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine, and I should like to read what he said on that occasion, as it appears in the last page of the translation appended to Hansard for April 24:
Thirdly, fishermen request unemployment insurance benefits. As early as last spring, one year ago, I made representations to the unemployment insurance commission and the Department of Labour in order to bring fishermen under the act. The unemployment insurance commission began a nation-wide survey to secure the necessary information and data before reporting on this request. I understand that the report is in preparation and hope that the government will be able to include fishermen in the benefits of this legislation which has already been extended to lumberjacks.
I wonder if the minister, when he gets around to it-perhaps not right away-would tell us what has happened to what the hon.

Supply-Labour
member said on that occasion. He will appreciate the difficulty when he understands that while workers in filleting plants come under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, the actual producers, the fishermen who bring in the fish so that these people can work, do not. I feel that it is a great injustice. I realize there are difficulties in the way, but I urge a real effort should be made whereby fishermen may be brought within the purview of the act. The minister will, I trust, make some comments in this connection.
I asked the minister a question yesterday to which he was good enough to give an answer. However, so that he will have the background of the difficulty at Seven Islands, I would point out that the original agreement with these companies was passed in 1938 by the then government of Newfoundland, and is set out at page 305 of the Newfoundland Statutes of 1938, No. 41. This was an act taking the place of an agreement between Weaver Minerals Limited and the government of Newfoundland, and substituting the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company Limited for the Weaver Company. Section 45 of the act says:
Except where It is necessary for the company to employ technical experts the company shall at all times employ Newfoundland workmen provided same shall be available.
I believe the minister saw the news item in the Daily News of Newfoundland of April 27, to which I referred yesterday, and which stated:
The majority of the Newfoundlanders who went to Seven Islands several weeks ago to work on the construction of the railway line from Seven Islands to the iron ore deposits have since returned home.
Their story is one of poor living and working conditions. The company, they state, failed to live up to its agreement. There was also friction between the Newfoundlanders and French Canadian workers. The latter outnumbered the Newfoundland workers many times over.
Mr. Harold Horwood, member of the house of assembly for Labrador who until recently was hiring agent for the syndicate engaged in the construction work, stated yesterday that the companies had "failed entirely to live up to their agreement with Newfoundland."
Under the agreement it was agreed by both parties that 1,000 men would be hired from Quebec and an equal number from Newfoundland. These men would work side by side in Quebec territory and in Labrador. This it was hoped would speed the project and eliminate the hiring of Quebec men to work only in Quebec and Newfoundlanders to work only in Labrador.
Many of the men who went to Seven Islands as machine operators were requested to take over other work at a lower rate of pay. They had been promised, at hiring, a specific wage rate. "It seemed," said one of the men, "that the French-Canadian foreman wanted to get rid of the Newfoundlanders and made conditions as tough as possible for us."
Another told of being billeted in a camp where living conditions were anything but the best, with

all French Canadians. The language and customs barrier made it impossible for him to become acquainted with his fellow workers.
Mr. Horwood feels that such conditions will continue to exist until some arrangements can be made between the Newfoundland government and the operating companies whereby a representative for the Newfoundland workers will be on the spot to look after their interest.
The syndicate is comprised of four companies, Cartier, McNamara, Mannix and Morrison-Knudsen.
In his reply yesterday the minister said there is no branch of the national employment service set up there yet, and no accommodation whereby it can be set up. I do not expect the minister to name any date, but I urge upon him that something be done at the earliest possible moment, because the iron ore deposit is one of the great things Newfoundland is counting upon to provide work. It is true that only the skimmed milk will be left for the province; in other words it will benefit materially only from the ordinary work given to the workers. The amounts from royalties are small, and it seems that processing is to be done outside the province.
In view of the fact that we do not worry him very often about these matters I would ask that he endeavour at the earliest possible moment to see that at least our skimmed milk is made available to us as quickly as possible.
The other matter to which I should like to refer has already been mentioned this afternoon. I have in mind the question of the national advisory council on manpower. Let me say at once how pleased we are that the minister saw fit to have a Newfoundlander appointed to that council. We consider it a great compliment, and are satisfied that he will do honour to the council as well. I must confess however that I wish to join with the hon. member for Nanaimo in saying that we are all somewhat worried because they have not got down to work more quickly. I have no doubt the minister is also worried.
Only today I noticed an article in the Montreal Gazette, headed "Labour Pinch Seen in Machine Tools". This is a Canadian Press dispatch dated at Toronto May 3, and stating that Walter G. Hubbard, vice president of a machine tool manufacturing firm, said that he is extremely worried about the situation with respect to machine tool manufacturers. The article goes on to say:
As rearmament accelerated, more and more lathes and precision planes, grinders and drills would be needed. But there were not more and more trained men to make them.
Thus we will be obliged to cut off deliveries to our normal customers (the manufacturers of non-essential goods) and devote all our time to defence.
As the minister well realizes, that is a serious matter. I presume he will get this committee together as quickly as possible. A

rumour seems to be fairly prevalent around this city in the past few days that this committee is to get its information from the census returns. I hope that that is not so. If the people of Canada believe that the information they give in the census is going to be used in that way they may not give the census takers the information they want.


Milton Fowler Gregg: May I say to the hon. member for St. John's East that there is no relation between the advisory committee on manpower and the organization set up to take the census. I make that categorical statement. As I stated on the day I announced the setting up of this advisory committee, we already have throughout the country local advisory committees from which the national body in between its sittings can always get information and pass it on to us.
This recalls something the hon. member for Vancouver East said. First of all I want to express my pleasure at having him give us his philosophy on labour relations as I think that is a most valuable thing to have on the record. The hon. member said that he would like to live to see the day when either the department or the government-I have forgotten which but it does not matter- would consult with leaders of labour as they do with other leaders in connection with matters affecting the welfare of the country. That recalls what the hon. member for Nanaimo and the hon. member for Cape Breton South said this afternoon, that this manpower committee was not meeting often enough. I agree that it may want to meet and may need to meet more often in the future than it has in the past.
However, I would point out that the most effective work is not always done when the members of a committee are sitting around a table. The hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out just what is happening in Windsor, particularly in the automobile industry. The representative of the parent organization of the automobile workers on the national committee is Mr. Pat Conroy. That situation in Windsor had been brought to our attention and as a result some three weeks ago the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who represents that area, and I invited Mr. Burt and some eleven of his chief lieutenants to meet with the Minister of Defence Production, the Minister of Resources and Development, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the hon. member for Essex West, myself and a number of officials to discuss this very question.
I admit that no suggestion was made at that meeting that the government would lift the employees who were presently out of
Supply-Labour
work to some other place, out the Minister of Defence Production outlined at great length and with great care what the plans were to see that the time lost in changing over from cars, say to aeroplane parts, would be no more serious in the way of lost time than the change-over from one model of car to another. As hon. members know, in their wage negotiations the automobile industry take into consideration the fact that there is often a period when groups of men are out of work because of change-overs.
I think I can report with some confidence that the situation is improving, but I did want to make the point that it was not just in the conference room that the advice of the national advisory council on manpower was received.
While the hon. member for St. John's East was speaking a moment ago I consulted with the Minister of Public Works and he has agreed with me to leave nothing undone to have an office of the national employment service established on the island as early as possible.


Mr. Noseworthy:: Mr. Chairman, the number of hon. members who have already referred to the national advisory council on manpower indicates the interest there is at the present time in that body. A year ago, and two years ago, when the minister's estimates were before us we were concerned with the question of unemployment. As has been indicated already, Korea has changed all that and today the country is more concerned with the question of the availability and allocation of manpower that it is with unemployment.
I want to compliment the information branch of the minister's department upon the excellent report they issued on the first meeting of the national advisory council back in February. According to that report the council made excellent progress, on paper at least. I should like to suggest to the minister that he bring us up to date on the work of the council, either tonight or when he has the information available.
According to the report there were six recommendations adopted at the meeting of the council, but the implementation of those recommendations was left on the doorstep of the Department of Labour. Therefore, I presume it will not be difficult for the minister to bring us up to date regarding these recommendations. I am going to enumerate them, not for the minister's benefit but because I think they are excellent recommendations and I am sure the committee will be interested in knowing what has happened in the two and a half months since the council met.

Supply-Labour
The first recommendation was that the records of technical and scientific personnel, which were first assembled in world war II, should be brought up to date, and added to those records there should be a record of all apprentices in Canada, this information to be brought together and studied for the purpose of increasing apprenticeship enrolment. I wonder if the minister can tell us what progress has been made in gathering that record, and what increase or improvement, if any, has taken place in the matter of apprenticeship enrolment.
The next important resolution was that the Department of Labour, in conjunction with other departments, should provide for priority in the placement of persons who apply for employment at the national employment offices. A priority rating was to be prepared, and those applying at the national employment offices were to be directed to the industries standing highest in that priority. I have not heard anything since with respect to what progress has been made in assembling that priority rating. Possibly the minister can tell us what particular industries now have received or are about to receive a high rating in this respect.
A third recommendation which is a matter of great concern to the people of Canada at the present time pertains to the question of national registration. It was agreed that a comprehensive study should be made of all aspects of this questiqp. I think we are very much concerned with this matter, and possibly the minister will inform us whether sufficient information has been secured to enable the government to decide whether or not we are to have a national registration.
One of the recommendations in which I was particularly interested was that some study should be made of the possibility of training the physically handicapped of Canada and thereby enabling them to undertake work of a self-supporting nature. This was to be undertaken as a result of the very excellent conference that was held a few weeks prior to that in Toronto between the federal and provincial authorities where the question of training physically handicapped people was discussed. I think we should know whether there has been any real progress in that respect in the last two and a half months, or whether we are still at the recommendation stage.
The last of the recommendations that I am going to call to the minister's attention was that some study should be given to the possibility first of moving workers from places where they were out of employment to places
fMr. Noseworthy.]
where there was employment. It was suggested that something by way of financial assistance would be given, possibly transportation expenses or something of that kind, to enable workers to move to places where jobs were available. There was also the suggestion that there was to be an examination of the possibility of placing industry near sources of available labour. That is rather a new departure. I think it is the first time that we have heard of consideration being given to moving industry to places where labour is available instead of moving labour to places where work is available. Possibly the minister can tell us what study has been made of the subject and whether anything concrete has yet been achieved in that respect.
There is one other matter on which I would ask the minister to give us a statement if he can. It is a question that is a source of worry to some of the trade unions at the present time. I wrote to the minister about it a few days ago, and I am sure he has not had time yet to reply. I refer to the status of the unions in plants which are working on contracts for defence production and where it becomes necessary to introduce certain security measures, where a security officer is appointed. Sometimes men have to be moved from certain secret types of work because of suspicion and so forth. The questions that the trade unions in my riding have asked me are these:	First
of all is the security officer in such plants appointed by and responsible to any department of the government, or is he appointed by the management of the plant and responsible to them? Do his instructions regarding security measures that are to be taken come from some government department, or do they come from the management of the plant concerned? Out of that arises the status of some groups that are now members of the union, the bargaining party, and in particular the fire protection staffs in these plants. The information which has been given to some of these unions is that fire protection staffs must withdraw from the union. In some of these plants the members of these staffs are members of the union. The understanding has been given to them that they will be required to withdraw from the union because of the nature of the work being done in the plant. Whether these instructions are coming from the government or whether they are devised by some local security officer on his own responsibility, or on the management's responsibility, seems to be uncertain. I would be very pleased if some time during

his estimates the minister would give consideration to these points and pass on that information.


Milton Fowler Gregg: In reply to my hon. friend, under terminable services on page 29 I shall be very glad to give a report on the matter affecting the first report of the national advisory council on manpower.


Joseph William Noseworthy: There is no information available since the report of their first meeting?


Milton Fowler Gregg: My hon. friend asked for a report on the six items which he mentioned tonight. I shall be glad to give that under "terminable services" because it is under that heading that an amount covering their travelling expenses is listed.


Howard Charles Green: I wanted to ask the minister one or two questions about the national advisory council, and I hope he can deal with these questions tonight because the item to which he has just referred may not be up for consideration for many weeks. I think it is customary for the minister to answer questions when they are asked on the administration item, especially when time is of considerable importance.
There has been some discussion today about this advisory council not having been called together for a second time. I would point out to the minister that on February 5 he had this to say with regard to the council, and I am quoting from page 71 of Hansard. for that date:
In this search for the maximum utilization of manpower now under the voluntary system, I believe the government should have available a joint clearing house for the prompt study of month to month manpower resources and needs, for the formulation of advice to the Minister of Labour or to the government with respect to these matters, and for the interpretation of resultant plans to workers, to management and indeed to all citizens.
If the minister will recall, at the time that statement was made the whole question of manpower was of the utmost importance. Nothing has happened, either at home or abroad, in the intervening days to diminish that importance. I am quite sure the minister will agree with that statement. On February 5, which will be three months ago tomorrow, he said he was going to have the advantage of consultation with this advisory council from month to month. I think there has been a great mistake in not having these consultations carried out. I would hope that from now on there would be n.o further such delays.
On February 21, a news release was issued by the minister's department on the subject of the first meeting of the national advisory council on manpower. In that release we find that certain subjects were specifically dealt
Supply-Labour
with, obviously the subjects which were considered the most important by the advisory council when it did have this first meeting. I believe one subject concerned a national registration. In this press release we find the following. It recommends-
-that the departments concerned should make an immediate and comprehensive study of all aspects of the national registration question.
That was the recommendation of this national advisory council on manpower when it met on February 20 and 21 of this year. On that same date press dispatches indicated that work would be started at once on the drafting of a national registration form. I am quoting from the Montreal Gazette of February 21, and the press dispatch states that the draft was to be submitted to the national advisory council on manpower at its next meeting. Unfortunately, of course, there has been no "next meeting". The report goes on:
The meeting will be held in camera, unlike the inaugural session yesterday which was open to the press. It is understood that steps will be taken to place orders for the paper and other materials necessary to turn out large numbers of the national registration forms, if the draft proves unsatisfactory. Present indications are that national registration plans adopted for use in the present emergency will differ materially from those in use during the second world war.
A great deal of emphasis was placed on the fact that this council recommended an immediate comprehensive study of all the aspects of the national registration question. I would ask the minister to tell the committee tonight what has been done in pursuance of that recommendation from the council on manpower. I believe that the house and the country are entitled to know now whether anything has been done in pursuance of that request, and if so, just what has been done.
As the minister knows, plans for such a registration would be extensive. They would take some time to work out, and if conditions become worse time is going to be so very precious. We are not going to have the time to fool around and delay these things again. Action will have to be taken quickly. I would ask the minister to explain just what has been done with regard to those plans for a national registration.
Then, there is another recommendation outlined in this press release, and it deals with the provision of skilled workers for industry and the armed forces. A study of the subject was recommended, and I believe that in the course of the discussion today other members have raised this point. I would ask the minister to tell us definitely what has been done to provide more skilled workers.

Supply-Labour
There was one other recommendation-as a matter of fact there were several other recommendations contained in the press release which I shall not repeat because the minister heard them this afternoon. In the report considerable stress was placed on the use of immigrants coming to Canada. On page 5 of the report we find these words:
Plans have been laid to bring about 150,000 immigrants to Canada during 1951, of whom close to one-half may be workers. Allowances must be made on the other hand for annual emigration which has amounted to between 20,000 and 30,000 during recent years, mostly to the United States.
Will the minister also explain how that plan is progressing; whether we are going to get 150,000 immigrants to Canada during 1951 and whether, as expected, about half of those will be available to help out in industry. Will the minister deal with those questions?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the
hon. member would not want me to try to give offhand a very good speech

at least I hope it was very good-which I have been looking forward to giving for quite a long time-


Howard Charles Green: You may have to wait a long time.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I hope I shall have the opportunity of giving that speech with respect to the points he mentioned and those mentioned by the hon. member who took his seat just a minute or so ago. Perhaps he will permit me to answer his question quite briefly. First of all with regard to the general comment today on the delay in calling the second meeting of the council, may I say that I have not at any time since the first meeting asked that the second meeting be delayed. Rather have I suggested, even before my friend the hon. member for Nanaimo jogged my elbow the other day, that I felt it would be a good thing for a meeting to be called as early as possible in view of the work intervening. I want to assure my hon. friend that I thought I made it clear in announcing the creation of the council that it was not in any degree under the orders of the Department of Labour or of the government. Two gentlemen in whom most of us have a great deal of confidence were chosen, because of their special qualifications, to act as joint chairmen.


Howard Charles Green: Who are they?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Norman A. Robertson, clerk of the privy council, and Mr. Arthur MacNamara, my deputy minister.


Howard Charles Green: Yes; but some minister must accept responsibility.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I am accepting responsibility for the receipt of the recommendations from that

council and the advice coming from that council, carrying out what can be carried out in my department and conveying for the consideration of my colleagues those opinions that demand their attention. As to the recommendations that have been read to me tonight, I should like to deal with them more thoroughly at another time on my estimates. But I can tell my hon. friend that the one on the study of registrations has gone on continually in my department and in association with other departments, referring as necessary to individual members of the council from time to time and I understand that a report on that subject will be made to the next meeting of the council.
As to the training of skilled workers for the armed services and for industry, not only has a study been made but arrangements have already been entered into with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and we are already carrying out training under that federal-provincial plan for the armed forces, the expense being borne totally by the federal government.
On the other side of the picture, as to training for defence industries, we have found in the investigation so far, in discussing it not only with the provinces but with the industries concerned, that the situation is such now that it is difficult to get any large number of unskilled or semi-skilled men away from the plants to undergo theoretical training in a school for a protracted period. In 1939, 1940 and 1941, I understand, it was possible to do that because there was a much larger reserve of manpower seeking employment. So what we are exploring now is how, if we can do it, to carry out some refinement of the federal training on the job and of making it possible for the plant to have facilities for the training of foremen or in other words to train instructors who in turn might be able to instruct on the job. That matter is receiving, on the part of Mr. MacNamara particularly and officials of the department, and the national employment service, very careful study.
Incidentally, of course, there is going on continually the usual federal-provincial vocational training, on a fifty-fifty basis.


George Randolph Pearkes: Before the minister leaves that point, may I ask if that dominion-provincial vocational training is not mainly for boys who have just left school, and not for young men trained from the plants?


Milton Fowler Gregg: In the main, it has been; yes. Of course now, for the armed forces, a larger number of more mature men will be going into it, depending on the trades for which they are being trained.

Our role in the Department of Labour with regard to immigration, as my hon. friend knows, is briefly this. We act in association with, and under the policy set out by, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, providing our facilities within the department, in the unemployment insurance commission and in the national employment services, to assist in placing immigrants who come in without any specified place to work. Although I know that the reports on immigrants arriving and applying are extremely favourable, I would prefer that a more complete report on that subject be given by my colleague the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and I know he would be glad to give a statement under my estimates if my hon. friend so wishes.


Howard Charles Green: I should like to ask one further question with regard to national registration. How long would it take to complete a registration if one were started say at the end of May? How far have the plans progressed for such a registration, and how long is it estimated the time would be that would be required to complete a registration?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I hope my hon. friend will not cross-examine me and draw me into a discussion of an extremely complex matter when I am here without my notes or anything, and also before there is an opportunity to refer the matter back to the council. But to answer his question in the light of the best information available, with all the preliminary planning, briefing and organization done beforehand, it is estimated that it would take approximately three months.


Mr. Brooks:: May I ask the minister if any consideration, has ever been given to using for this purpose the information which will be collected by the census takers?
I know that the returns they make are quite exhaustive. They have the age, the occupation, the citizenship and all that sort of thing. It would seem to me that it is a duplication of work to have another investigation made when we shall have the census returns in a few months. I should like to know whether any consideration has ever been given to that procedure.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I can say that consideration has been given to it; in response also to another question, I can also state that the use of any existing organization of government, namely the census organization, the unemployment insurance commission which has a vast amount of information with regard to workers or our own department, for this purpose of registration-should it ever be necessary, 30709-174
Supply-Labour
after careful thought and weighing of the needs of any future situation-is something which should not be done without the matter being referred to the House of Commons and a complete and full outline given as to the form it should take, and it would only be after further study by the national council. It would be interesting to hear how they feel about the study that has gone on. I think I have approached the matter with a reasonably open mind. I was not here from 1939 to 1944; but I have had an opportunity, as the study has been going on, to see what was done. Some of the hon. members who were here probably know the degree of effectiveness in the fruits of that work, but without referring to that, the thing that does strike one is this: If we were able to take a census this week and provide ourselves with a great mass of information at a very great cost by taking on a large number of employees of government, unless a constant and continual follow-up were maintained, six months from now, nine months from now it would not be worth very much.
I am not putting that down on the debit side at all, but it is a point that has impressed itself upon me, and the question therefore has come up for consideration: Would it be better to do something now, or to do the planning, the staff work, the preparations and the arrangements so that when the time appeared to be essential it could be done quickly?


Howard Charles Green: The minister said that the registration would take about three months. How long will it take to complete the plans preparatory to doing the registration?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I should say within two months.


Howard Charles Green: That would be five months
altogether?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Why would it take three
months to do the registration? As I remember the last registration, volunteers helped in every constituency, and it was completed in a very short time. I may be wrong on that, but if my memory serves me that was the position. Everybody helped and the registration was done within a few days. Why would it take three months to complete the registration in 1951?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Again I do not want to be
drawn into a discussion. When I speak of three months I am taking the estimate which was given to me by those who have given careful study to this problem. The impression I got was that while the actual business of getting names and information on cards

Supply-Labour
does not take very long, the real time is taken in compiling the information and putting it in a readily useful form.


Mr. Hansell:: I do not want this first item in the labour estimates to pass without saying a word or two on matters that have pressed in upon my mind and puzzled me. At the outset I refer particularly to what I have regarded as rather a delinquent, or shall I say, a slow turnover from a wartime productive basis to a peacetime productive basis. I cannot help thinking that our productive resources in labour manpower could have speeded up the production of wanted goods to a much greater extent than has been done since the end of the war.
When the war ended we expected that we were going to launch into one of the biggest eras of prosperity that the nation had ever seen. Our needs for consumer goods were immense. Through the expansion of war industries during the war and the expansion of the credit facilities of the country, money was more or less plentiful. The productive capacity of the country was perhaps the largest or the greatest that the country had ever seen, and yet somehow or other we did not come to that place where we were producing all that we could.
For years many wanted goods have been in short supply. We were told that there was a backlog of orders. You could not buy cars without putting your name down on the list and waiting for months. I believe that the situation has been alleviated somewhat, but even today you cannot go on the floor of the sales room and buy a car as once you could. Other articles have been in short supply, refrigerators and things of that nature.
It does seem to me that our productive machinery could have been speeded up much more quickly than it was in order to supply Canadians with wanted goods, and goods which they had money to buy. It appears to me that what concerned those governments and labour was the possibility of coming into a period and having to face what our government would regard as an unemployment problem. Their attitude, I have reason to believe, was something to this effect:	We
must not work too hard. Our productive machinery must not be speeded up too fast, or the first thing we know we shall produce too much and we shall have an unemployment problem on our hands.
On that particular point let me say that I regard that view as absolutely fallacious. Instead of looking at the picture and recognizing that unemployment after all is the fruit of a very highly mechanized and

power age in which the burden of toil can be lifted from the shoulders of the worker, giving him more time for life. Instead of regarding the situation as a benefit that should accrue to our civilization, we look at that benefit as being a problem, a problem to be faced. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, the fallacy of that must be recognized both by government, and particularly by the Department of Labour, and also by labour itself. What must be recognized, I believe, is that in the last analysis it is the production of the country that constitutes the real wealth of the nation. It is not necessarily money. Our government policy should be one where we say to labour, "You produce; produce all you can; do not be afraid of overproduction; if there is a period of overproduction we will call it by another name- we will call it underconsumption. So, get your machinery to work and produce all you can. We, as a government, will pursue a financial policy that will distribute the fruits of your labours."
That should be the attitude of the government. But instead of that, we know it is not the attitude of the government. It seems to me its attitude is: "Work like slaves, in order to produce, so that our financial policy may remain as we think it should remain- sound-and we will interpret the term sound as we wish to interpret it." That seems to be the government's policy.
Only yesterday the hon. member for Lethbridge asked the Prime Minister a pertinent question. His question was as to whether the Prime Minister believed that that which is physically possible should be made financially possible, or words to that effect. What did the Prime Minister of this country say? He rose in his place and evaded the question. He did not answer it at all, but flung it back by saying that he was surprised that a member of the Social Credit group should ask such a question. Why should we not ask a question of that kind, and why should not a straightforward answer have been given?
Under the present financial policy of the government, where do we find labour? We find that labour becomes subject to the government's financial policy. I am sure that if the truth be spoken, and if the whole situation were analysed in its proper perspective, labour as well as the government would be able to determine a financial policy that would accrue to labour and to the rest of the citizens of Canada in such a way that labour could enjoy to the very fullest extent the work of their own hands.
I hold in my hand a pamphlet published by the joint labour unions of Canada. It is

a submission on price controls to the government, and is published by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Congress of Labour, the Canadian and Catholic Confederation of Labour, and the dominion joint legislative committee of the railway transportation brotherhoods. I have read this with some care and I believe it is a good pamphlet; it contains much that is true and is extremely well thought out. But before one finishes reading it he comes to one or two passages which are very significant and revealing. We find this at page 11: Labour will fight, work and sacrifice to preserve freedom. It will not fight, or work, or sacrifice, to preserve any economic system if that system imperils freedom.
That is quite a statement and, placed in its proper perspective, it should be a true statement. But the fact of the matter is that the present financial policy of the government does the very thing that labour says it will not work and sacrifice to avoid. This indicates to my mind that those who have written the pamphlet, despite the fact that it is well thought out and the arguments are good, show a tremendous lack of one thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that the authors of the pamphlet have any knowledge as to the basic monetary principles upon which the economic system functions. It takes for granted that there is nothing basically wrong-I say basically wrong-with the economic system itself.
According to this pamphlet labour admits that the patient is sick. They admit there is something wrong with the body politic. I am not saying they alone, because I think this is characteristic of many people in many organizations and industries throughout the country, as well as in governments. The authors of the pamphlet admit that the body politic is sick, but they are not able to diagnose the seat of the trouble. They admit that a boil breaks out here or a carbuncle breaks out somewhere else, or a rash begins to appear on the body politic-and of course, Mr. Chairman, I am now speaking figuratively. But it never occurs to them that there is anything wrong with the heart or the bloodstream. So when something pops up to dislocate some branch of the economic system they say, "We are sorry that that boil broke out on the neck. We will prescribe this little bit of salve. If we rub it in we may be able to get rid of the boil."


Mr. Laing:: They are giggling.


Ernest George Hansell: Or if a carbuncle breaks out on the top of the head so that the body politic cannot wear its hat properly, they say, "Well now, let us prescribe a different kind of 80709-174}
Supply-Labour
salve." So they rub it in again. Someone might even come up with the bright idea of using a scalpel and cutting out the carbuncle. But never do they reach the seat of the trouble.
They may even try an injection, and the body politic rouses itself and appears to take on new strength, only to find that after the injection has worn off the body politic begins to stagger around again. That is the situation. I say, until labour, until industry and until government recognize that the whole economy of the country

labour, wages, prices and all things-is adjusted to a financial policy that will be basically sound, we shall continue to have these troubles with labour and other groups of people, in industry and government alike.
There is another matter too that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I did not intend to criticize the labour laws on the statute books of this country because I think they are fair and just. I think the labour code, perhaps for the time being, is one of the best that exists. As time goes on I trust it will be improved, but I do believe that our labour laws, not only nationally but provincially, should guard the right of the individual worker on every occasion. I am not asking questions to be answered. I am intending rather to be provocative. Does the individual worker have his democratic say with freedom and without impairing his right to all the benefits that accrue to labour by reason of organization? I believe that is a question the government should take to its heart and watch most carefully.
I wonder sometimes how integrally related our labour unions are to the labour movements in the United States. I have no objection particularly to a union which because of its particular character may have an international complex. I realize that there are benefits for labour, and perhaps for industry also because industry in some respects has a certain international character. But I believe that we have reason to guard the rights of our individual labour organizations so that they may be free to ply their course and make independent decisions without any interference or coercion from other countries.
I do not want to see happen in Canada what is happening in the United States. The large labour organizations in the United States are fast becoming what I would term a labour monopoly. There was a time when the lords and barons, the princes and kings were looked upon as terrible ogres who were enslaving the worker, and with some degree of accuracy and reason. But that day seems to be

Supply-Labour
slipping from us. The day is arriving, at least in the United States, when the powerful labour leaders have become the barons, lords and kings of the earth.
Monopoly in labour is just as dangerous as monopoly anywhere else. I rather agree with what the hon. member for Kootenay West said a few days ago when he analysed for us the principle of monopoly and stated that sometimes monopoly may be all right if it serves the national or community interest, but that it becomes a danger when it serves a certain section only, regardless of national interest. I trust the government is watching this most carefully because I believe that in the end a monopolistic labour will destroy the rights and freedom of the individual worker.
I am going to leave those thoughts with the minister. I have not asked him any specific questions but I would like him to comment on the first part of my remarks respecting the change-over from wartime production to peacetime production. I know we are gradually slipping back into wartime production, but I do believe that the solution to many of our problems is to place the proper emphasis where it should be placed, to produce all we can and then have the government say, We will settle our financial policy even though we have to change it in order that Canadians may live and enjoy the fruits of their labours.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be quite brief but I should like to make a few comments on this first item, particularly with respect to the national advisory council on manpower. Before doing that I should like to extend my congratulations to the minister upon assuming this portfolio. I know there were many veterans in Canada who were sorry to see him leave the Department of Veterans Affairs. I am sure that if the minister satisfies labour as he satisfied the veterans of. this country when he was Minister of Veterans Affairs he will be a most successful Minister of Labour.
Before proceeding to what I wish to say tonight I must take issue with the hon. member for Macleod who, as I understood, rather criticized the international aspect of our labour unions. I would draw to his attention that Chrysler is international, that Ford is international, that many other organizations are international. I am quite sure that if there is danger to the national interest or to democratic principles in which we all believe and which we all intend to support and defend, it will come from international capitalism rather than from any other source.


Ernest George Hansell: I said that.
[Mr Hansell.]


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am rather intrigued with
this national advisory council on manpower. I believe in principle it is a correct approach to the situation which it has been appointed to advise upon. But many hon. members are not quite sure whether this is a purely paper organization or whether it is really intended to function in the national interest and do the job hon. members expect of it. It has great possibilities and great opportunities if it is given the opportunity to function.
This afternoon the hon. member for Cape Breton South mentioned the capable labour leaders we have on the advisory council, men with talent and ability, and the capable civil servants. He also indicated, however, that these men will not be able to serve satisfactorily on the council unless they are given the opportunity to function as this house expects them to, and unless they have the co-operation of advisory or industrial councils all across Canada, the co-operation of those who are in close touch with local conditions and circumstances. This council can very well deal with over-all policy and general programs, but if its decisions are going to be sound, if they are going to be effective, they must be based on advice and information received from people who are in close touch with local industrial, plant and development conditions.
Therefore I heartily support the suggestion that the government must find the means of having this committee extend its influence throughout the country by co-operation and association with some form of local industrial council which includes representatives of government, labour and management. If the situation is as serious in all constituencies in Canada and presents as serious problems as it does in the constituency I have the honour to represent and in the surrounding country, the council faces a very stiff problem indeed. To illustrate the development projects proposed for the coming year and the next year in the riding I represent, and to some extent in the riding represented by the hon. member for Kootenay East, I would bring to the attention of the committee that the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company has just issued a program of development that calls for the expenditure of $30 million on a new hydroelectric plant, $12 million on the modernization of the Trail lead smelter, $9 million on the development of a phosphate fertilizer plant at Kimberley, $3,200,000 on the development of the zinc plant at Trail, $2,850,000 on the development of the Kootenay river to Kimberley power transmission line, $3 million on the development of the Bluebell

mine, $2,750,000 on the development of the Hudson Bay mine production and preparation.
In addition to the $62,800,000 program proposed by the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company, we have a large expansion of mining development. Millions will be put into mining development this year and the year following in Kootenay West alone. Then we have a tremendous expansion of the lumber industry. Nearly all operators in the whole district are expanding their mill operations and their woods operations. At the present time surveys are being made and plans are being drafted for the building of a $20 million pulp mill in the upper Arrow lakes area of my constituency.


Arthur Laing: Unparalleled prosperity.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In addition, there is a
general private building program in the area involving millions of dollars. In addition, there is the expansion of the telephone service which will involve millions of dollars. There is the extension of the power and light service transmission lines and so on throughout the country in addition to those I have mentioned totalling millions of dollars. In addition, there is the program of the provincial public works department for my area alone totalling something over $6 million, and on top of that there is a federal public works program, including defence production and public works, wharves and so on, totalling close to $1,500,000.
I have drawn to the attention of the committee the enormous development proposed for the constituency I represent and the surrounding country. That development is found pretty well on the same scale throughout the whole of British Columbia. In view of our defence production needs and the tremendous programs that I have mentioned, it is going to take very careful planning and careful assessment of given situations if the two are going to proceed smoothly at the same time. In the building of power dams, in lumber operations and in the development of mining and these large construction projects, large numbers of skilled workmen will be required, men with skills in the particular work being undertaken. In addition a large number of unskilled workers will be required.
Then there is the shifting from one operation to another. You cannot build a huge power plant by suddenly dropping 2,000 men on the job and proceeding with the work. A certain type of people is required for the foundations and the drilling. A certain type is wanted for the concrete work, and then another group for the steel work. The same thing is true with respect to the expansion
Supply-Labour
of the Consolidated plants and the other developments which are going on in my constituency. If we are going to avoid undue travelling about of men while this tremendous development is taking place we shall have to take steps to that end. Men will hear about these things taking place, and not knowing the skills required or the particular type of labour at a particular time they will waste their time and energy travelling to that part of the country seeking work. In some cases when they get there they will find that they are not the type of labourer required at that particular time.
These things pose a tremendous problem. I am quite sure that the national advisory council on manpower, with the best intentions, cannot function efficiently if it is simply going to meet periodically to accept statements of civil servants, figures that have been prepared by the research department, and so on. I believe the council must have in its hands the recommendations of industrial councils or committees composed of representatives of government, labour and management in the areas concerned who are particularly acquainted with the problems involved. Mining problems differ from district to district, from one part of the country to another. Lumbering operations in my constituency are quite different from those carried on at the coast. The building of power plants is a different proposition in the swift waters of the rivers of British Columbia from what it is in the slower flowing waters of eastern Canada. In my opinion the council will have to have the very close co-operation of local committees if it is going to function satisfactorily.
If the minister will see to it that the council has the co-operation of groups all across Canada acquainted with local conditions he will have done something to strengthen the very fibre of democracy because democracy is based upon local and individual responsibility and co-operation no matter whether the development is a provincial or a national program. Before the minister's estimates are concluded, I should like him to explain if he has any plans for such expansion of the services so far as co-ordination and cooperation with the national advisory council on manpower is concerned.


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a moment on this point. The hon. member for Kootenay West has outlined very clearly in his speech what is intended and what is being carried out in these plans. He outlined the great development in his own constituency. I did not hear from him any observation which would indicate that as

Supply-Labour
yet there is any serious clashing in the sense of providing manpower, but he expressed concern as to the future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is right.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I think I am correct in saying that the reason that disruption has not yet occurred has to a great extent been due to the good offices of advisory committees on employment in his area. They have representatives of labour and management serving on these committees, and they are doing an excellent service in advising our regional and local offices of the national employment service. They are very active. When workers are wanted they do not need to go on a wild goose chase, but can find out through these offices where the employment is without spending their money going to various places.
Now, multiply the area in that constituency by all the areas in Canada, Mr. Chairman, and you will see the strength of contact that this national body has available. That was what I meant when I stated in my first announcement in the house that these local employment advisory committees would act in close co-operation with this national body.
There is one other point as to the functions of the council. There seemed to be a suggestion this afternoon that the council was an administrative body in itself, but it is advisory, as the name indicates.


William Joseph Browne: I have to speak on this item, because I do not see any other item in the estimates dealing with this subject. I am glad to know there is going to be such a shortage of manpower in British Columbia. It does not show in the statistics that were published in March, because there was an increase in unemployment there over the previous month. Throughout Canada the same conditions seem to apply, and there were 293,000 listed as unemployed on January 20.
I am not going to speak for the rest of Canada; I am going to speak for Newfoundland and I intend to mention the subject discussed by my friend the member for St. John's East earlier this evening. There is the question of the employment of Newfoundlanders in the iron ore mines on the border of Quebec and Labrador. The question of manpower for the Labrador iron ore mines has been the subject of discussion and legislation in Newfoundland since 1938. Newfoundlanders have been looking forward all these years to getting employment there. Actually there is a mystery, to me at any rate, because no one seems to know anything

about it down in Newfoundland. It is only occasionally that we meet a person who is employed there.
At the present time, I understand, the companies are building a railroad some three hundred miles from Seven Islands into the place where the mine will be operated. As my friend has pointed out, there has been some dissatisfaction amongst Newfoundlanders who have been employed there. In the employment registry office at St. John's on January 25 there were 5,160 registered as unemployed. That was the highest number for any city in Canada east of Quebec. It does not, by any means, represent the number of people who are unemployed, because many people do not think it is worth while to go to the office and put down their names. They have done that and they have never heard anything more about it. They have no faith in it. In addition to that, there are a lot of people like fishermen who are employed seasonally. They do not go to register at all. This is a special year. Because of the low prices which fishermen received for their fish last year, they do not intend to go fishing. There are going to be a great number looking for work. I imagine they had counted on getting some employment in Labrador, either on the railway or in the mine. I should like to know if the minister or his officials have given any consideration to the question of recruiting men to go to these places, or do the men have to find out for themselves how they are going to get employment there?
I know the government has nothing to do with the employment of men there, but I presume that in such an out of the way place the employment commission might be consulted by the companies who are seeking men. I imagine the type of men they want are probably woodsmen and riggers, men who have been working on railway gangs and that type of construction work. I think you could find a great many of them in Newfoundland. When I was at home a great many people came to see me, and a great many people have been writing to me to ask how they can get work in Labrador. I can only refer them to the employment commission in St. John's. My experience has been that it is a sort of accounting office receiving money from those who are employed, and paying out unemployment insurance to those who are not. It is not doing much in regard to obtaining employment for people looking for it. I know that it is nearly eleven o'clock, but perhaps the minister will have a moment to reply.


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall be happy to give the
hon. member a complete reply under an item in my estimates later, because there are a few aspects of this subject in which I am interested. It applies to my own province as well as his. I shall be glad to outline to him what the feeling of the commission is with regard to the grouping of fishermen under the terms of the act. He will understand at once that there are great difficulties to overcome, but in so far as it is possible to do so we will attempt to carry out the suggestions.


William Joseph Browne: Do I understand the minister to say there is an item under which he can reply to my question?


Milton Fowler Gregg: I shall do so under the unemployment insurance item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it is eleven o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Do I understand that the first item is not carried?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I asked hon. members if the first item was carried.


Howard Charles Green: I understand the minister will answer the hon. member for St. John's West on another item.


Milton Fowler Gregg: And any other question I have not covered tonight, I shall attempt to cover on the appropriate item.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Shall the item
carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Chairman; it is
eleven o'clock.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
4,	1951	2725
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: On Wednesday last the Prime Minister announced that the resolution in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have priority. That resolution concerns the reference of his estimates to the committee on external affairs.
At three o'clock the Prime Minister announced that, if there were an understanding with all parties of the house that we could get through quickly this address concerning the amendment to the British North America Act on old age pensions, he would undertake to move it. I understand that it would not impair the discussion of external affairs which was announced some days ago. I really hope we can succeed in having this put through the house a little more quickly than the first item of the Department of Labour.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister say what other days next week are also filled?


Alphonse Fournier: On Tuesday we shall move to go into supply, undertaking not to call any new departments, and proceed with
the estimates of national defence.


Howard Charles Green: And Wednesday also?


Alphonse Fournier: And Wednesday also; but please do not ask me about any other days.


Mr. Adamson:: I understand then that on Monday external affairs is going on as scheduled?


Alphonse Fournier: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.


[Stage Direction]
Note: We were not supplied by the Hon. Mr. Duplessis with an authorized translation of his letters of March 11, 1951, and April 18, 1951. We desire to emphasize that the unofficial translations which have been prepared here have not been authorized by the Hon. Mr. Duplessis and to that extent are not binding on him.

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Premier
Edmonton, March 6, 1951
The Honourable Stuart S. Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo enclosing copies of the submissions made by the premiers of the various provinces in relation to the proposed amendments to the British North America Act.
I am in agreement with your first suggestion that a new section 95a be enacted reading as follows:
"95a. In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to old age pensions within the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions made by a provincial legislature."
While there is no doubt that at the present time the legislature of each province has the power to make laws in relation to old age pensions, nevertheless I can see no objection to repeating the power in section 95a even though redundant, in order that no argument can be raised that it was intended to take this power away.
I have no further suggested amendments to head 2 of section 92.
Yours very truly
(Sgd.) Ernest Manning Premier

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Prime Minister and President of the Council
Toronto, Ontario, March 7, 1951
The Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Your letter of February 28th received.
For reasons which you have very clearly stated, and with which we are in complete agreement, you propose a new section 95A to be in either of the following forms,-
"In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to old age pensions within the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions made by a provincial legislature."
or
"It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
Either one of these forms is satisfactory to us. If, therefore, the government of Canada or any of the provinces have a preference for one of these forms it will be quite satisfactory to us.
We trust that the amendment will be effected as soon as possible and the legislation proceeded with as agreed upon.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd.) Leslie M. Frost
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Office of the Premier
Victoria, March 8, 1951 Honourable Stuart Garson, LL.D.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Garson:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of February 28, together with enclosures relating to the proposed constitutional amendments dealing with old age pensions and the indirect sales tax.
I have had our attorney-general and his officials examine your correspondence thoroughly and we have come to the view that the draft in respect of old age pensions to be found on page 3 of your communication satisfactorily deals with this question. It is felt that it grants the necessary power to the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to old age pensions while at the same time fully preserving provincial rights in dealing with the same question.
In relation to the sales tax amendment, we are satisfied that the amendment suggested by you is quite sufficient for all practical purposes. This amendment, as I gather from your correspondence, is as follows:

Appendix
"2. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by:
(a)	direct taxation within the province, and
(b)	indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the province and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province."
With kindest personal regards,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Byron I. Johnson
Premier
ST JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND Office of the Premier
March 9, 1951
The Honourable Stuart S. Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Thank you for your letter of the 28th ult. with reference to constitutional amendments in which you enclose copies of correspondence from the various provincial premiers.
I have discussed this matter with the attorney general and it has come before cabinet. As far as Newfoundland is concerned we are prepared to accept what you refer to as your third draft (on page three of your letter), reading-
"It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
but if the other provinces prefer it we would agree to your new draft section 95A (page two of your letter) reading as follows-
"In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to old age pensions within the province; and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions made by a provincial legislature."
With respect to the proposed amendment of section 92 (2) it seems to me that the point made by Premier Macdonald may be well taken, and that the amendment with reference to indirect taxation might well be included in section 92 as a new enumerated head (2)	(a). Newfoundland,
however, will accept the ruling of yourself and your advisers in this matter.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. R. Smallwood Premier
(Translation):
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC Office of the Premier
Quebec, March 11, 1951
The Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C., P.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Garson:
The Quebec legislature resumed its parliamentary work on January 24 last and, for the past couple of weeks we have been at the most active and engrossing stage of our legislative programme.
Your letter dated February 28, respecting the Canadian constitution and old age pensions was delivered at my office March 2 and I was unable to take cognizance of same before yesterday. Thanks for the information your letter imparts to me and for the copy of the correspondence relative to these important problems which accompanied it.
In the course of the Canadian intergovernmental conference held at Ottawa at the beginning of December, 1950, the federal government made statements and proposals to the representatives of the provinces with reference to these constitutional amendments and old age pensions.
The federal authorities wish to assume the full payment of old age pensions from age 70 and this without the * means test," provided it be possible for it to recoup itself for such outlays by means of a constitutional amendment conferring on Ottawa a jurisdiction which at the present time is exclusively provincial. Furthermore, the federal government undertakes to contribute, with the provinces, in a proportion of 50 per cent, to the payment of an old age pension of $40.00 per month, granted with "means test," to Canadian citizens from age 65.
For the purpose of helping the provinces secure supplementary revenues in order to meet the additional expenses occasioned by the provincial contribution of 50 per cent to payment of pensions starting at age 65 and up to age 70, the federal authorities suggested a constitutional amendment granting the provinces a limited power of indirect taxation.
You forwarded to me with your letter of January 2 last two federal drafts of constitutional amendments, namely: (I indicate with capital letters the amendments in question)
"A" 1. Add a new subsection to section 95 in the following terms:
"(2) Notwithstanding anything in this act, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions."
"B" 2. Re-enact head 2 of section 92 to read as follows:
"2. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by
(a)	direct taxation within the province, and
(b)	indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the province and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province."
On January 20, you wrote me to make alterations to the federal draft relative to the 3 per cent indirect tax.
These draft amendments were submitted to the council of ministers and, afterwards, to the Quebec legislature during the session presently being held.
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
We have made known on several occasions the decision of the present government of Quebec to co-operate with the federal authorities in the establishment of an improved old age pensions system that will be as complete as possible in the circumstances. Actually, on many occasions, we have expressed the desire of the government of the province to co-operate with the federal authorities in the establishment of just and proper old age pensions as from age 65.
The government sought and obtained from the legislature the authorization to conclude a friendly agreement with the federal authorities in respect of these matters. We have come to the following conclusions:-
We deem the first draft amendment-amendment "A" unacceptable for numerous reasons, of which there are two special ones: in the first place, because it confers on Ottawa an exclusive power in a field exclusively reserved to the provinces; then, because the terms of section 95 with which this draft amendment would be linked, grant, in certain cases, a federal priority we deem inopportune in the circumstances.
With reference to the second draft amendment which your letter of February 28 brings us, we believe there would be cause to alter it. This new draft reads as follows:-
"C" "It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
It seems to us that in constitutional matters it is necessary to proceed cautiously and in a clear and precise manner. The Canadian constitution is a fundamental document the importance of which by far transcends ordinary conventions and effects of which have repercussions a long time in the future.
We consider that this constitutional amendment should mention expressly that the matter has to do with old age pensions starting at age 65 and over. Besides, this federal draft amendment indicates the federal power to legislate "from time to time" and does not make this important mention in respect of provincial legislation. This difference in the wording could give the unfortunate impression that the provincial powers are limited to the present provincial legislation. In our opinion, it would be proper that the expressions "from time to time" apply to the provincial legislative power.
Do you not think it would be proper, to avoid any possible doubt in the future, to indicate definitely that the matter has to do, in respect of old age pensions starting at age 70, with pensions of at least $40.00 per month, granted without "means test"?
There would also be cause, in our opinion, to consider in this amendment, the fact that the provincial taxpayers and the federal taxpayers are the same persons so as to avoid any possible injustice with regard to the provinces which, each and every one, are vitally interested.
Furthermore, we consider that this constitutional amendment should exist by itself so as to indicate clearly its special character and that, at all events, it should not form part of section 95 which grants certain priorities to the federal body, something we could not reasonably accept.
With reference to the draft amendment respecting the new provincial power of indirect taxation, amendment marked "B" in this letter:-
As you are aware, we have expressed the desire and opinion on many occasions that, the fiscal or financial power being a necessary corollary to the exercise of the administrative and legislative power, the provinces have the right to possess, in a precise, clear and definitive manner, all the sources of revenue indispensable to the performance of their obligations as well as to the exercise of their rights and this, not only with a view to the present but also with a view to the future, for to govern is to foresee.
On the other hand, as this aspect of the problem is one of the very vast scope, and we wish to co-operate in the rapid enactment of appropriate and just old age pension legislation, we shall limit our remarks, at the present time, to the draft submitted.
It follows from the correspondence that the federal is not disposed to acknowledge to the provinces an indirect retail sales tax exceeding 3 per cent.
As a further manifestation of our desire to co-operate and subject to our rights and to our suggestions in respect of the exact delimitation of the provincial and federal fiscal and financial powers, we will make no objection to this constitutional financial amendment provided it is more clear, more effective and more capable of applications. We acknowledge the expediency of forestalling any possible discrimination between the provinces and, in the circumstances, of subordinating the application of this power to the retail trade.
However, it seems to us that the expression "goods", in the suggested amendment, may open the door to multiple conflicts of interpretation and, in short, render illusory a good portion of the new rights conferred by this amendment. We believe it would be proper to grant to the provinces the right to apply an indirect sales tax in the retail sales field, "at the retail sale level". This expression appears to us more clear, more just and better suited than the expression "sale of goods". We understand the expediency of the distinction you make with respect to goods sold at the retail level for consumption or use in one province by a citizen of that province.
It goes without saying that all precautions should be taken so that the new constitutional amendment should not have the effect of calling in question the power of the provinces of imposing sales and education taxes, that are imposed in the province of Quebec, to quote hut one example.
In a word, you can rest assured, as we have proven on numerous occasions, that it is the sincere desire of the province to co-operate in a friendly and loyal spirit, with the federal authorities in the expeditious formulation and application of a just and appropriate system of old age pensions, starting at age 65.
On several occasions, yourself and the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Mr. St. Laurent, have acknowledged and proclaimed the bilingual character of our country, and that is why in a matter of this importance, we deem proper that the opinion of the province of Quebec be conveyed in the language of the immense majority of the population of our province.
With my sincere regards,
(Sgd.) M. L. Duplessis

(Text):
NOVA SCOTIA The Premier, Halifax
March 12, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, P.C., M.P.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Let me thank you for your letter of February 28 and for the proposed amendment to the B.N.A. Act mentioned therein.
So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, I may say that we think that there is agreement between us on the purpose of amendment and generally upon the method of amendment.
The amendment proposed in your letter used the phrase "in Canada" instead of the phrase at present used in section 95 "in all or any of the provinces". I am not sure whether the new phrase is to be taken to mean that any dominion law in relation to old age pensions must be uniform in its application and operation throughout Canada. In fact, the operation of old age pension laws has varied. Thus I think that when Prince Edward Island began to pay old age pensions, they fixed the maximum monthly payment at $15 instead of $20 which was the maximum in all or most of the provinces. However, I believe that a great deal can be done in such matters by regulations agreed to jointly by the dominion and any province, and perhaps the point which I raise in this paragraph is not of great significance.
I doubt whether the concluding clause is essential in order to assure concurrent powers to Canada and the provinces. I refer to the clause which reads: "but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions made by a provincial legislature". I would suggest, therefore, that this clause be deleted, but if the general desire is to have some such clause in the amendment, I should like to suggest the following words be used: "but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall detract from the legislative competence of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions".
As to the amendment with regard to the imposition of indirect taxes by the province, I note that your letter does not suggest any redraft of the original proposal.
I should like, however, to repeat, what I have already said in my memorandum which accompanied my letter of January 19. That was that the amendment constitutes the sole source of the provinces' power to impose an indirect tax. It ought, therefore, to be sufficiently wide in its terms to authorize any tax which it is contemplated the provinces should have a right to impose.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) A. L. Macdonald
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
THE PREMIER Fredericton
March 12, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:-
I received in due course your letter of February 28 relating to constitutional amendments which have been under study respecting old age pensions and a provincial sales tax.
Appendix
This letter will deal only with the first proposed amendment. I feel this division of the matter is justified inasmuch, as pointed out in my letter of February 2, the two matters are "quite distinct one from the other and capable of separate action".
Some confusion seems to have developed in certain quarters where an opinion or view has developed that the sales tax amendment was part and parcel of the old age pension plan which was under study at the December federal-provincial conference. All governments there represented are fully aware that there is no relation or connection between the two and that the old age pension plan can go forward without any sales tax amendment.
In order, however, to emphasize this point I am referring herein only to the old age pension amendment and shall make the proposals regarding a sales tax amendment the subject of another letter to follow shortly.
Having in my letter to you of February 2 agreed to the proposed amendment relating to old age pensions originally proposed we are quite prepared to accept either of the alternative amendments set out in your letter of February 28. We have no preference in the matter and either of the latest proposals which receives the assent or concurrence of the other provinces will have our approval.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) John B. McNair
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
THE PREMIER Fredericton
March 13, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Yesterday I replied in part to your letter of February 28, relating to amendments to the British North America Act, respecting old age pensions and a provincial sales tax.
For reasons then stated I dealt only with the first mentioned amendment. Herein I shall state our views on the proposed taxation amendment, a matter entirely distinct and separate from the other.
Your letter of February 28 suggests that the federal government is inclined to stand by the principles of the sales tax amendment as previously indicated in your letters of January 2 and January 20.
As pointed out in my letter of February 2, our interest in such a constitutional amendment rests upon the advantage that an indirect sales tax at the retail level is considered to possess over a consumers tax such as is now operating in several of the provinces, which involves a direct levy on the purchaser at the time of the retail sale.
When last year the legislature of this province adopted a consumers' tax much of the opposition to it centred around the features of it connected with its collection. It was to meet the alleged objectionable features of this form of taxation that this government has been supporting the proposal for a change in the constitution under which our present levy could be imposed in another form-that is as an indirect sales tax at the retail level.
In passing it may be observed that some who were then expressing criticism of our present tax because of the bothersome collection methods involved would now appear to be sympathetic to the opposi-
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
tion being voiced against the constitutional amendment which has since been proposed and which if adopted would serve to overcome their former objections.
While we are still interested in an amendment to the constitution which would permit us to abolish our present tax and replace it by an indirect sales tax we see no advantage for this province in the present federal proposal.
To meet the needs of this province and its municipalities the rate of our new tax last year was fixed at four per cent. By adopting this rate the legislature was able to provide extensive exemptions, the most important being the complete exemption of food and fuel. To replace this tax by an indirect sales tax at three per cent, the maximum rate which would be permitted under the amendment, would doubtless mean the elimination of all exemptions.
There is reason to feel that behind this proposal to limit in the amendment the jurisdiction of the provinces to fix the tax rate is the thought that any indirect sales tax imposed by a province under its authority should be applied right across the board to all retail sales without any provision for exemptions, even in matters as vital to the average citizen as food and fuel. The government of this province is not prepared to adopt any such plan. In fact we are definitely opposed to such notions.
It is difficult to regard the attitude of the federal government on this point in any other light than a determination to dictate to the provinces their policy in taxation matters. We fail to see why it should concern the dominion whether a provincial indirect sales tax should be two per cent, three per cent or any other percentage. As a matter of principle it seems to us that if the legislatures are vested with jurisdiction in any field, large or small, they alone should determine how their powers should be exercised.
So on the one hand we are opposed in principle to the amendment in the present form. On the other hand we attach no value to it from the practical point of view. As stated it could have no operation in this province unless the indirect taxation authorized by it were applied without exemptions, a course to which as stated we are opposed. The only other solution would be to have both forms of taxation in use which no one would want.
Notwithstanding what has been written we will be glad to be kept informed of the views of the other provinces on this matter and any developments connected therewith. If all the other provinces agree to the constitutional amendment in the form proposed by you we would feel very strongly constrained to agree thereto in the interest of cooperation and goodwill.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) John B. McNair
SASKATCHEWAN Premier's Office
Regina, March 20, 1951

[Stage Direction]
The Honourable Stuart S. Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Enclosed please find a copy of the Votes and Proceedings of	the	legislative assembly of
Saskatchewan for Friday, March 16. You will notice that the assembly has given its approval to both of the constitutional amendments which have been under discussion. The wording of both amendments is such that the Lieutenant Governor
in Council can give its approval to the constitutional amendments as presently drafted or to any amended wording which may result from further discussions providing, of course, that the basic principles remain unaltered.
A radio broadcast intimated some time ago that you might call a conference of the provincial premiers to discuss the exact wording of the proposed constitutional amendments. If such a conference is in prospect, I would appreciate hearing from you regarding the probable date it is likely to be held.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) T. C. Douglas
Enel.
Extract from Votes and Proceedings of the legislative assembly of the province of Saskatchewan, No. 32, Friday, March 16, 1951.
"Moved by the Hon. Mr. Douglas (Weyburn), seconded by the Hon. Mr. Fines:
"That this assembly approves in principle the amendment to the British North America Act proposed by the government of Canada following the federal-provincial conference held in December, 1950, designed to provide that while the legislature may make laws in relation to old age pensions within the province, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, and authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to approve any amendment incorporating such principle or to approve any amended wording suggested by the government of Canada and deemed to embody such principle.
"A debate arising, and the question being put, it was agreed to unanimously.
"Moved by the Hon. Mr. Douglas (Weyburn), seconded by the Hon. Mr. Fines:
"That this assembly approves in principle the amendment to section 92 of the British North America Act proposed by the government of Canada following the federal-provincial conference of December, 1950, under which, in addition to the powers already possessed by the province, the province shall have power to raise revenue for provincial purposes by,
'Indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the province and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province, and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods';
and authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to approve the amendment in the above words or to approve any amended wording suggested by the government of Canada which provides for indirect taxation within the province.
"A debate arising, and the question being put, it was agreed to on the following recorded vote:
++YEAS
Messieurs
Douglas (Weyburn)
Wellbelove
Bentley
McIntosh
Brockelbank
Fines
Lloyd
Brown
Gibson
Swallow
Thair
Darling
Howe
Douglas (Rosetown)

Sturdy	Kuziak
Williams	Denike
Gibbs	Walker
Heming	Willis
Dewhurst Stone	Larsen-25.
	NAYS
	Messieurs
Benson	Korshinski
Tucker	Cameron
Lopston	Banks
McCormack	Horsman
Danielson	Deshaye
Blanchard	McCarthy
Trippe Egnatoff	Maher-15.
SASKATCHEWAN Premier's Office
Regina, March 22, 1951
The Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson:
In my letter dated February 5, 1951, I stated: "We are satisfied* that the wording which you have suggested for the two proposed constitutional amendments will carry out the spirit and intent of the decisions arrived at during the federal-provincial conference of last December."
As far as the proposed amendment to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions was concerned, we were satisfied with the suggested wording. For this reason we undertook to submit the proposed amendment to the legislature as soon as possible with our complete endorsation and support.
With respect to your comments, we agree with the opinion expressed in your letter of February 28, 1951, that the effect of the amendment originally proposed was not to give the government of Canada sole jurisdiction in the field of old ags pensions legislation. While we are of the opinion that the first draft amendment with respect to old age pensions would leave the provinces jurisdiction to deal with old age pensions, we do not see why either of the redrafts set out on pages two and three of your letter would not be satisfactory. Of the two redrafts, the second set out on page three of your letter would be preferable as it makes it clear that the provinces had jurisdiction previously, and will continue to have jurisdiction in the field of old age pensions legislation.
In view of your suggestion that the redrafts of the proposed amendment respecting old age pensions be considered, and in view of the conclusions we arrived at after studying your suggestions, we decided that it would be advisable to redraft the resolution submitted to the legislature on February 8, 1951. The resolution as redrafted appears on page two of the votes and proceedings of the legislative assembly of Saskatchewan, number 32, Friday, March 16, 1951, as follows:
"Moved by the Hon. Mr. Douglas (Weyburn), seconded by the Hon. Mr. Fines:
That this assembly approves in principle the amendment to the British North America Act proposed by the government of Canada following the federal-provincial conference held in December, 1950, designed to provide that while the legislature may make laws in relation to old age pensions within the province, the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age Densions in
Appendix
Canada, and authorizes the Lieutenant Governor in Council to approve any amendment incorporating such principle or to approve any amended wording suggested by the government of Canada and deemed to embody such principle."
This motion was agreed to unanimously. A copy of the Votes and Proceedings containing this motion and a record of the vote was forwarded to you with my letter of March 20, 1951.
We are of the opinion that both redrafts of the amendment to the British North America Act as proposed in your letter dated February 28, 1951, embody the principle approved in the above resolution and are satisfactory. As indicated above, we prefer the second redraft set out on page three of your letter. In accordance with the wishes of the legislative assembly, we would be prepared at any time to discuss any other amendment incorporating the principle set out in ihe resolution of the legislative assembly.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) T. C. Douglas

[Stage Direction]
YK068 121/119 FD Winnipeg Man 2 115 3A
Hon Stuart S Garson Minister of Justice Ottawa Ont Your letter February twenty-eight concerning constitutional amendments re old age pension and indirect sales tax has been fully considered by Manitoba government. Premier Campbell's letter to you January thirty-one indicated our acceptance of old age pension proposals enclosed with your letter January two failing general approval of alternative proposals set out in his letter. Our alternative proposals not being generally acceptable we confirm approval of your proposals. No objection here to either form of new section 95 A but prefer last alternative in your letter February twenty-eight. Government resolutions of concurrence in constitutional amendments for both old age pensions and three per cent indirect sales tax on today's order paper of Manitoba legislature.
C. Rhodes Smith, Attorney General
Identical letter sent to all Premiers.
Office of the Minister of Justice CANADA
Ottawa, April 3, 1951
The Honourable L. M. Frost, K.C.,
Premier of Ontario,
Parliament Buildings,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Frost,-
On February 28, 1951, I wrote to you forwarding two alternative drafts to the first old age pensions amendment draft which I had forwarded to you in my letter of January 2, 1951. In my said letter of February 28, I also dealt with representations which had been made by a number of the provincial premiers concerning the matters referred to in my letter of January 2, 1951.
I now enclose, herewith, the replies to my said letter of February 28, 1951, which I list as follows: Letter from Premier Jones, dated March 2, 1951: Letter from Premier Manning, dated March 6, 1951:
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
Letter	from	Premier	Frost, dated March 7, 1951;	Letter 1951;	from	Premier	Johnson, dated	March	8,Letter 1951;	from	Premier	Smallwood, dated March	9,Letter 1951;	from	Premier	Duplessis, dated	March	11,Letter 1951;	from	Premier Macdonald, dated	March	12,Letter 1951;	from	Premier	McNair dated	March	12,Letter 1951;	from	Premier	McNair, dated	March	13,Letter 1951;	from	Premier	Douglas, dated	March	20,Letter 1951;	from	Premier	Douglas, dated	March	22,Telegram from Hon.	C. Rhodes Smith, K.C.,	
dated April 2, 1951.
It is to deal with the points which have been raised in these enclosed communications, the last of which I received only yesterday, that my present letter, dated April 3, 1951, is being written.
The enclosed letters show that the governments of Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have accepted either the second or third drafts of the old age pensions amendment. The government of Prince Edward Island prefers either the first or the third draft.
The government of Nova Scotia seems willing to accept either the second or third draft, subject to their being satisfied with regard to the "but" clause in the draft. The Honourable Mr. Macdonald suggested that this should be revised to read:
"But no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall detract from the legislative competence of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions." The purpose of this "but" clause is to make it clear that any federal old age pensions laws would not override any provincial old age pensions laws. We think that if the Nova Scotia wording is adopted and if parliament legislates in a field where the province may also legislate, one of two results may follow: First, parliament may oust the jurisdiction of the province: or, second, in the event of repugnancy, the act of parliament may override a provincial act. Nova Scotia's proposed draft deals with the first possibility, but leaves the second untouched. Thus, if there is a repugnancy, the act passed by parliament will override the provincial act-the very thing that we are seeking to avoid. We therefore would prefer our own original language as follows:
"But no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
The government of Quebec rejects the first draft of the old age pensions amendment and comments only on the third draft. We take it from the Hon. Mr. Duplessis' letter of March 11, 1951, that the third draft is preferable to the Quebec government provided certain changes in the third amendment are made, as follows:
1.	The Honourable Mr. Duplessis objects to the fact that parliament is given power to legislate "from time to time" whereas this phrase is not used in the reference to provincial laws. Upon consideration, this point seems to be well taken. We see no objection to striking out the phrase "from time to time" in the third draft. This would leave parliament in the same position as the provincial legislatures in this regard.
2.	The Honourable Mr. Duplessis takes the position that the old age pensions constitutional
amendment should stand by itself and should not form part of section 95. In this connection it will be noticed that we have numbered the old age pensions constitutional amendment as section 95A, that is, as a section quite distinct and apart from section 95. We would have no objection to emphasizing this distinction still further by having inserted in the British North America Act a heading "Old Age Pensions" just above the proposed new section 95A.
3.	The Honourable Mr. Duplessis thinks that the amendment should mention that it concerns old age pensions as from the age of 65 years and over; and that
4.	It would be advisable to point out clearly that with regard to the old age pensions from the age of 70, what is intended is a pension of $40.00 per month without a means test.
The views of the other provincial premiers are invited with reference to the Hon. Mr. Duplessis' suggestions Nos. 3 and 4. We think that these are two points upon which there should be consensus of opinion before the wording in the draft constitutional amendment is amended to take care of them.
I would accordingly submit for your approval a redraft of the third draft to read as follows:
"Old Age Pensions
95A It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no 'law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province".
Re: Sales Tax Amendment
The present draft amendment reads as follows:
"2. Re-enact head 2 of section 92 to read as follows:
"2. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by
(a)	direct taxation within the province, and
(b)	indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sale" of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the province and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province, and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods".
The provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Manitoba have agreed. New Brunswick still continues its objection to the fixing of the rate at 3 per cent and still suggests 4 per cent, but says:
"If all the other provinces agree to the constitutional amendment in the form proposed by you we would feel very strongly constrained to agree thereto in the interest of cooperation and goodwill".	.
The Honourable Mr. Macdonald of Nova Scotia repeats the observations made earlier. They were to the following effect:
1.	That it would be preferable to leave the present 92(2) as it stands and to add a new head for the new taxing power. Provided it meets with the approval of the other provincial governments, we in Ottawa would have no objection to framing

the amendment in this way and accordingly would suggest that a new head could be added under section 92 to read as follows:
"2A. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the provinces and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods."
2.	That the exemption of goods sold for shipment outside the province should be in the discretion of the provincial legislature, on the ground that if this limitation is included no province would then be in a position to levy a tax in respect of interprovincial transactions. This has been carefully considered but we feel that the exception is necessary in order to confine the taxing power to taxation within the province.
3.	That section 121 of the British North America Act might be enough to prevent discrimination against goods produced or manufactured outside the province. It may be that section 121 has this effect but we feel that it would be desirable to put the matter beyond doubt.
4.	That services, combinations of services and materials and intangible things such as electricity, are not included in the section, and that there might be difficulty in dealing with products that are sold at retail and then incorporated in a manufactured product that is also sold at retail. These matters were dealt with in my letter of February 28.
The Honourable Mr. Frost of Ontario has made no comment.
The Honourable Mr. Duplessis comments that Quebec would have no objection to this sales tax amendment ''provided it be made clearly more effective and more susceptible to application"; and that this could be done by conferring a power to impose an indirect sales tax in the retail sales field at the retail sales level. Perhaps I should say in this connection that in one of our original drafts we did refer to a retail sales tax, but exception was taken by one of our tax experts concerning the use of the expression ''retail." The dictionary meaning of "retail" is simply to sell in small quantities, and it was not felt that this was clear enough. We then spelled out more specifically the type of sales to which we were referring, namely, a sale to a buyer for the purpose of consumption or use and not for resale. In doing this we adopted the language which was used in the Quebec Sales Tax Act. That act imposes a tax on a purchaser "at the time of making a purchase at a retail sale" but it does not rest with the dictionary meaning of the term "retail," but goes on to define "retail sale" as meaning "a sale to a purchaser or user for the purpose of consumption or use and not for resale." We still think that the Quebec language which we have adopted is the best suited for the purpose of this constitutional amendment.
In conclusion may I invite your comments upon, and I hope your agreement with
1.	the latest draft of the constitutional amendment regarding old age pensions on page 3 of this letter;
2.	the latest draft re provincial indirect retail
sales tax on page 4 of this letter.	*
In these two latest drafts we have tried to incorporate the views of all provincial governments in a manner acceptable to all provincial governments.
Appendix
This letter is being sent out at the earliest possible date after I had heard from all of the provincial governments. I am asking all the provincial premiers to give these matters prior attention. The constitutional amendments which may be agreed upon will have to be secured from the parliament of the United Kingdom. There are reasons why it is desirable to secure any wise amendments upon which we may agree as soon as possible.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Stuart Garson
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Office of the Premier Winnipeg
April 7, 1951
The Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
I attach for your consideration copy of letter dated April 6 received from Harry Dunwoody, together with copies of Votes and Proceedings Nos. 41 and 42 referred to therein. You will note that certified copies of these resolutions have been forwarded to the Secretary of State for Canada.
Kind regards.
Enel.
Sincerely,
(Sgd.) Douglas Campbell

[Stage Direction]
Clerk of the Legislative Assembly
April 6, 1951
Hon. D. L. Campbell,
Premier of Manitoba,
Legislative Buildings.
Dear Sir:
Constitution of Canada, amendment of
Two resolutions were agreed to by the legislature of Manitoba:
1. On motion of Hon. Mr. Schultz, that "This house concurs in the proposal to amend the constitution of Canada to provide that the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions. This appears at page 3 of Votes and Proceedings No. 41, dated April 2, 1951, copy of which is enclosed.
2.	On motion of Hon. Mr. Smith that "This house concurs in the proposal to amend the constitution of Canada to provide that a provincial legislature may enact legislation to impose indirect taxation. This appears at pages 4 and 5 of Votes and Proceedings No. 42, dated April 3, 1951, copy of which is enclosed.
This is to inform you that certified copies of these resolutions have been made and forwarded through the usual channels to the Secretary of State for Canada.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) H. H. Dunwoody Clerk, Legislative Assembly
Appendix
Enclosures.
HHD/E
Votes and Proceedings,
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba,
No. 41 dated 2nd April, 1951. p. 3.
Hon.   Mr. Schultz@: that this house:
1.	Concurs in the proposal to amend the constitution of Canada to provide that the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation the old age pensions, and
2.	Authorizes the honourable the president or other member of the executive council, to discuss with representatives of Canada and the province', the form and method by which such amendment could most appropriately be made and to express the concurrence of Manitoba in any amendment which satisfactorily achieves this purpose.
And a debate arising,
And Hon. Mr. Schultz, and Messrs. Willis, Hansford, Kardash, Gray, McDonald and Prefontaine having spoken,
And the question being put,
It was agreed to.
Votes and Proceedings,
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba,
No. 42 dated 3rd April, 1951.

The house resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Hon. Mr. Smith, that this house:
1.	Concurs in the proposal to amend the constitution of Canada, to provide that a provincial legislature may enact legislation to impose indirect taxation within the province with respect to retail sales at a rate not exceeding 3 per cent of the sale price, and
2.	Authorizes the honourable the president or other member of the executive council, to discuss with representatives of Canada and the provinces, the form and method by which such amendment could most appropriately be made and to express concurrence of Manitoba in any amendment which in his opinion satisfactorily achieves this purpose.
And the debate continuing,
And Messrs. Willis, Anderson, McGirr, Hansford, McDowell, Hon. Mr. Campbell, Messrs. Gray, Roblin, Harrison, Clement. Karda'h, Hyrhorczuk, Swailes, Solomon, Hawryluk and Hon. Mr. Smith having spoken,
And the question being put.
It was agreed to on the following division:
++YEAS
Anderson	McDonald
Bardal	Miller
Bell	Mitchell
Campbell	Mooney
Chester	Morton
Christie	Robertson
Clement	Rungay
Greenlay	Schultz
Hamilton	Shuttleworth
Hillhouse	Smith
Hyrhorczuk	Solomon
Jobin	Thompson
Lucko	Trapp
MacCarthy	Turner-29.
Marcoux	NAYS
Argue	Hansford
Bend	Harrison
Gray	Hawryluk
Roblin
Seens
Shewman
Stinson
Swailes
Willis-18.
Premier's Office PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
April 9, 1951
The Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson,
The government of Prince Edward Island approves the redraft of the third constitutional amendment draft regarding old age pensions, set out on page 3 of your letter of April 3, as well as the latest draft re provincial indirect retail sales tax set out on page 5 of your same letter.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. Walter Jones
Premier
PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Office of the Premier
Victoria, April 9, 1951
Honourable Stuart Garson,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Canada.
My dear Mr. Garson:
I have for acknowledgment your two letters of April 3, together with enclosures.
Please be advised that I have forwarded same to the Honourable G. C. Wismer, K.C., attorney-general, for his consideration.
With kindest personal regards.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) Byron I. Johnson Premier

The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
FREDERICTON The Premier
April 10, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
I received in due course your letter of April 3 respecting the two constitutional amendments which have been under consideration relating respectively to old age pensions and a provincial sales tax.
In listing the replies received to your letter of February 28 you omitted any reference to my letter of March 12. Copy of that letter as well as my letter of March 13 was among the lot of correspondence containing the replies of the provincial

Kardash
McDowell
McGirr
Morrison
Olive
Renouf

premiers to your letter of February 28 which was forwarded to me. I assume therefore that copies of both letters went to all premiers.
My purpose in writing two separate letters dealing with the two proposed amendments was indicated by me therein. For the reasons given I consider it most essential that the two matters be recognized as separate and distinct. While your letter of the third instant did not dissociate the two amendments it is our hope that the federal government regards them as two entirely separate matters and shares our view that the old age pension amendment is not contingent upon the adoption of the other.
I am prompted to emphasize this matter again after reading the correspondence with the provinces forwarded by you in which will be found passages in which the two matters are tied together.
The government of this province would welcome an assurance from you that so far as the federal government is concerned the two amendments are not inseparable; and in particular that the old age pension amendment will not stand or fall with the other.
Whether or not agreement can be reached on the sales tax amendment it seems evident early agreement can be arrived at on the pensions amendment. There can be no doubt that all provinces are one in their desire to see the new old age pension plan in operation at the earliest possible moment.
On the assumption that general agreement is arrived at with the provinces on both proposed amendments we have another suggestion to offer. It is that the matters should be dissociated when laid before parliament. In other words they should, in our view, be made the subject of two separate joint addresses.
Recognizing that opposition to the sales tax amendment has become quite vocal in some quarters and recalling the fate of a similar proposal in the Senate a few years ago we feel that a revised old age pension plan for this country should not be placed in jeopardy by being presented to parliament as part of a joint amending operation involving also the sales tax matter, which may again prove very controversial.
We hope, and urge, that some heed may be paid to this suggestion for separate treatment in the two houses of parliament.
May I now refer to the latest proposals regarding the two amendments as advanced in your letter of April 3?
For the old age pension amendment you suggest a new section in the B.N.A. Act to be numbered 93A with the caption "Old Age Pensions" and to read as follows,-
''It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
The government of this province approves of the amendment in that form and language.
With respect to the sales tax amendment we agree with the suggestion advanced by Nova Scotia that head 2 of section 92 of the B.N.A. Act should remain untouched. Therefore the proposal made by you that any sales tax amendment be the subject matter of a new head, to be numbered 2A, meets with our approval.
From that point we do not view the proposals with the same degree of satisfaction or equanimity. In this connection I would repeat the reasons contained in my letter of March 13.
Appendix
In our view the matter has become unduly involved and difficult through the insistence of the federal government on placing restrictions on the exercise by the provincial legislatures of the proposed new taxing powers.
I feel constrained to quote here one paragraph in my letter of March 13 which reads as follows: "It is difficult to regard the attitude of the federal government on this point in any other light than a determination to dictate to the provinces their policy in taxation matters. We fail to see why it should concern the dominion whether a provincial indirect sales tax should be two per cent, three per cent or any other percentage. As a matter of principle it seems to us that if the legislatures are vested with jurisdiction in any field, large or small, they alone should determine how their powers should be exercised."
We are at a loss to understand why the federal government should take such an arbitrary stand. Why should it presume to dictate policy to the provinces? There is a principle at stake here upon which we feel the provinces should be adamant.
As further stated in my said letter this government has no practical interest in the sales tax amendment as proposed by you. To use the powers it would give, in order to replace our present consumers' tax with an indirect sales tax, would require the abandonment of all our exemptions-on food, fuel and everything else-a course which is altogether repugnant to us.
We would be very reluctant to consent to the taxation amendment as proposed. However, we will adhere to the undertaking given in my letter of . March 13-"If all the other provinces agree to the constitutional amendment in the form proposed by you we would feel very strongly constrained to agree thereto in the interest of cooperation and goodwill."
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) John B. McNair
SASKATCHEWAN Premier's Office
Regina, April 13, 1951
Hon. Stuart S. Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson:
The government of Saskatchewan is of the opinion that the redraft of the third draft set out on page 3 of your letter, as indicated below, is satisfactory:
"Old Age Pensions"
"95A It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada my make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
As to the suggestion of the premier of Quebec that the amendment should mention that it concerns old age pensions as from the age of 65 years and over, the government of Saskatchewan feels that it would not be advisable to preclude the extension of pensions to those below age 65 without a further amendment to the British North America Act.
While it is agreed that the pension that is paid to the age group 70 and over will be $40 per month without means test, and while it can be

Appendix
appreciated that it is desirable that this pension should at no time be reduced to a level which will not provide at least a minimum standard of subsistence, we are of the opinion that the amendment should be limited to matters of principle respecting the spheres of jurisdiction of the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces with regard to old age pensions.
We trust that there is now sufficient agreement on the proposed old age pensions amendment to enable the government of Canada to prepare the necessary legislation to provide pensions of $40 per month without means test to all aged 70 and over, beginning January 1, 1952, as agreed upon at the federal-provincial economic conference in December last.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) T. C. Douglas



ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
Office of the Premier
Edmonton, April 16, 1951 The Honourable Stuart S. Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 3rd instant outlining the suggestions made by the premiers of the various provinces of Canada in relation to the proposed amendments to the British North America Act.
The legislature of this province by a unanimous resolution adopted in principle the amendments outlined in your communication, and I therefore am pleased to advise that I approve of the amendment to section 95a as outlined on page 3 of your letter and reading as follows:
"95a. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
I also agree with the proposed amendment to section 92 by including a new subhead 2a as set out on page 4 of your letter and reading as follows:
"2a. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the provinces and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods."
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Ernest Manning
Premier
[Stage Direction]
Office of the Minister of Justice
Ottawa, April 16, 1951 The Honourable J. B. McNair, K.C.,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, N.B.
Dear Mr. McNair:
Thank you for your reply of April 10 to my letter of April 3, 1951.
As you correctly state my said letter omitted any reference to your letter of March 12. This was a
clerical mistake that occurred only in the letter to yourself. The letters to all of the other provincial premiers contain this reference; and in all of them, including your own, there was enclosed a copy of your letter of March 12.
So far as the federal government is concerned, you are quite right in regarding the two constitutional amendments dealing with old age pensions and a provincial sales tax as being separate and distinct. The only reason why at each successive stage of my correspondence with the provincial premiers I have dealt with these two amendments in the same letter was to place before the premiers all matters under discussion in the one comprehensive letter and thereby expedite matters by decreasing the number of letters which we have to exchange. We have always taken the position, however, that the adoption of the old age pensions constitutional amendment is not contingent upon the adoption of the sales tax constitutional amendment.
Whether some provincial governments might feel that the extra revenue possibilities which would be made available to them by the passage of the sales tax amendment would affect their attitude towards the old age pensions amendment or the tax agreements, we obviously cannot say.
In line with the thought that these two constitutional amendments are separate and distinct, we are quite agreeable, if the provinces wish it that way, that these two constitutional amendments should be made the subject of two separate joint addresses to be presented to the parliament of Canada requesting respectively that these two constitutional amendments should be passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom.
With great respect I cannot agree with your complaint that the federal government is seeking to place restrictions upon the exercise by the provincial legislatures of the proposed new retail sales taxing power. The facts, I suggest, are as follows: At the conference the provincial governments asked for a constitutional amendment to enable them to occupy jointly with the dominion government a portion of the field of indirect taxation. For this privilege the provincial governments offered, and the federal government has asked for, no quid pro quo or compensation of any kind; for, as you correctly imply, the granting of this privilege of joint occupation by the provincial governments with the federal government of a part of the field of indirect taxation is not contingent upon any other matter.
By granting to the provincial governments at their request the right to use jointly with the federal government a portion of the field of indirect taxation, the federal government will automatically restrict its own exclusive use of that field. Surely then it is reasonable that the federal government in making such a grant for no consideration, may specify the limits of its grant by imposing this 3 per cent limitation. Within the limitations of the 3 per cent grant the provinces have complete liberty to use these indirect retail sales taxing powers in any way in which they see fit, except that they may not use them to discriminate between goods produced within and goods produced without a taxing province or to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods. This clause against discrimination the provinces themselves have willingly agreed to, and indeed have helped to draft.
If by merely limiting the extent to which its exclusive field may be shared, to a 3 per cent rate, the federal government is to be regarded as dictating policy to the provincial governments, it clearly would be better for the federal government not to share its exclusive field at all, and thus avoid charges or suspicion that it is dictating policy to

the provincial governments. If the sales tax amendment were not proceeded with, that fact would not necessarily disturb the old age pensions amendment or the renewal of the dominion-provincial tax agreements.
It is important that there should be a clear understanding that the federal government is not at all anxious to surrender a portion of its own field of taxation in this way. It is doing so because the provinces have made out a strong case that they need and would like to have the joint use of a portion of the indirect tax field, and because the dominion government wishes in this, as in other matters, to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the provinces. If, however, any of the provinces, upon any grounds whatever, are opposed to the provinces having the power to impose a 3 per cent indirect sales tax, the federal government would be quite glad to retain the whole of the indirect tax field to itself since it obviously would be better off if it did so.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Stuart S. Garson
P.S. Since dictating the above I have received a letter from Premier Douglas of Saskatchewan enclosing a copy of his letter dated April 13, to yourself in reply to your letter of April 11 to him, in which you enclosed a copy of your letter of April 10 to me. It therefore has occurred to me that it might save time in this matter if I send to all of the provincial premiers a copy of your said letter of April 10 to me and a copy of this letter dated April 16 from me to you. This I am doing by today's mail.
Office of the Minister of Justice, Canada
Ottawa, April 16, 1951 The Hon. T. C. Douglas, M.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Legislative Building,
Begina, Sask.
Dear Mr. Douglas,-
I enclose herewith copy of my reply to the letter which Premier McNair wrote to me under date of April 10, 1951.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) Stuart S. Garson
(Identical letter addressed to all Provincial Premiers with exception of Premier Douglas.)
Office of the Minister of Justice, Canada
Ottawa, April 16, 1951
The Honourable J. B. Smallwood,
Premier of Newfoundland,
Legislative Building,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
Dear Mr. Smallwood,-
Premier McNair of New Brunswick wrote me a letter under date of April 10 of which perhaps he may have sent you a copy. In any event the points which he has raised in this letter and to which I have referred in my reply of April 16 should I think be brought to the attention of all of the provincial premiers as soon as possible and I therefore enclose herewith:
(1)	copy of Premier McNair's letter to me of April 10. 1951; and
(2)	copy of my reply of April 16, 1951.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) Stuart S. Garson
Appendix NEWFOUNDLAND Provincial Government, St. John's
April 17, 1951
The Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Thank you for your letter of the 3rd instant with further reference to constitutional amendments.
I have had our attorney general and his officials examine your latest proposals, and on their advice now agree to-
1.	Your latest draft of the constitutional amendment regarding old age pensions on page 3 of your letter.
2.	Your latest draft re provincial indirect retail sales tax on page 4 of your letter.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. B. Smallwood
Premier of Newfoundland
(Translation):
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC Prime Minister's Office
Quebec, April 18, 1951
Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C., P.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Garson:
On April 9th last, I received your letter dated April 3rd, in reply to mine of March 11th, in connection with old age pensions and with the proposed amendment concerning an indirect provincial tax. Thank you for sending me the copies of the letters you mention and which my colleagues and I have read and considered with the greatest interest.
This morning, at the meeting of the council of ministers, we have again considered these important problems.
This afternoon, I received your letter dated April 16, together with copies of the letter dated April 10 which you received from Hon. Mr. McNair and of your reply of April 16. I am much obliged to you for this courtesy.
On several occasions, among others during the federal-provincial conference held in Ottawa last December, and in my letter to you of March 11 last, we have clearly stated the attitude of the province of Quebec.
We are still in favour of an old age pensions system, which would be fair and appropriate and would apply from 65 years of age and over. We believe such a system should be established as soon as possible.
In our opinion, it would seem appropriate and even necessary to consider as two separate matters the problem concerning old age pensions and the problem concerning the new tax which is proposed. I am happy to hear, from your letter which I have received this afternoon, that the federal authorities are willing to dissociate these two problems and to consider them separately. I wish to thank the federal authorities for I am convinced that, in the circumstances, such a step is imperative.
We consider that the proposed indirect provincial sales tax does not meet the situation and
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
would complicate rather than assist in the settlement of the important problem of old age pensions. Such a result should be avoided.
Serious doubts exist as to the timeliness of this new tax and we feel that clearness and precision are always desirable in constitutional matters.
We still favour the establishment of an old age pension for persons 65 years of age and over, and we are willing to accept a clear and precise constitutional amendment giving the federal government a power it does not possess presently, that is to make laws in this matter, without however infringing upon provincial rights.
The latest amendment suggested by you reads as follows:
"Old Age Pensions
95A It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
As I mentioned in my letter to you dated March 11 la~t, we would prefer that the age be mentioned in the amendment, but if this condition tends to delay the coming into force of old age pensions for persons aged 65 years and over, we will not press the point. However, we deem it necessary and fair to indicate fully that the new rights granted the federal government in this matter of old age pensions must in no way diminish provincial rights.
Consequently, to our mind, an essential amendment is called for. The words " . . . made by the provincial legislature of such province" refer to the past and the present but they take no account of the future. The wording should be: " . . . made or to be made by the provincial legislature of such province".
Furthermore, do you not think it would be fair and appropriate that the address voted by the federal parliament to be forwarded to the parliament at Westminster should be drafted both in French and in English to mark fully, once more, the bilingual character of our nation? This wish seems to us a legitimate one.
With kindest regards, I beg to remain,
Yours truly,
(Sgd.} M. L. Duplessis
(Text):
Office of the Premier PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Victoria, April 19, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson:
I have for acknowledgment your letter of April 16 and wish to thank you for sending for my attention a copy of a letter received from Premier McNair, and a copy of your reply thereto.
With kind regards.
Yours faithfully,
'(Sgd.) Byron I. Johnson .	Premier
Attorney-General

[Stage Direction]
Victoria, April 19, 1951 Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson:
The premier just handed me a copy of a letter from Premier McNair to yourself dated April 11, in regard to the proposed amendments to the B.N.A. Act, covering old age pensions and provincial sales tax.
We, of course, have passed resolutions in the legislative assembly favouring both these amendments and you no doubt will be advised in due course by the provincial secretary as to the contents of the resolutions.
We dealt with the two matters separately and while there was no opposition to the resolution regarding old age pensions, there was some opposition to the proposal involving indirect taxation power.
It seems to me that the two matters are in no way connected. The provinces need not resort to an indirect sales tax in order to secure funds to pay their share of the proposed pension payable to needy persons between 65 and 69 years of age.
I think there is little doubt of the legality of our tax on the consumer under our sales tax legislation. Certainly there is no doubt of such legality in relation to the tax in its impact on sales at the retail levels over the counter.
Our tax, of course, is wider and applies to heavy machinery purchased by industry, but it is clear on the authorities that a tax on the consumer such as we collect on gasoline and now under the social security and municipal aid tax is within the jurisdiction of a province. Therefore the provinces could, if they saw fit, and require further revenue to meet their share of the pension, introduce similar legislation.
I therefore agree that if there is any doubt whatever that the House of Commons or the Senate might refuse to approve the indirect tax, the two matters should be kept separate.
I do not, however, agree with the argument of Mr. McNair that the power to levy an indirect tax should be without the limitation that it was not to be more than 3 per cent. I would not think that the national government would be agreeable to grant such a power of taxation without limit because it seems obvious to me that a provincial government could, if so minded, upset the whole economy of Canada if there was an unlimited power of taxation in this respect.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) G. C. Wismer
Attorney-General
NOVA SCOTIA The Premier
Halifax, April 21, 1951
Hon. Stuart S. Garson, P.C., KC.,
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
Thank you for your letter of the 3rd April with which you enclosed copies of replies received from the premiers of the provinces to your letter of the 28th February, last, with reference to the

proposed amendments to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions and sales tax.
While I certainly have no desire to prolong unduly discussion of the forms which the amendments should take, I believe that the considerations which prompted the suggestions accompanying my letter to you of the 19th January last, are such as to merit some further consideration.
Old Age Pensions
You are correct in your conclusion that Nova Scotia is willing to accept either the second or third draft of the old age pensions amendment subject to the "but" clause. Having reference to your comments I would suggest that it is not competent to parliament to oust the jurisdiction of a province where that jurisdiction is granted by the British North America Act. Furthermore, I suggest that legislation passed at Ottawa has no supremacy by reason merely of the fact that it is federal legislation. Conflict normally arises between an exercise of federal powers under section 91 and an exercise of provincial powers under section 92 and in such cases, having in mind the express words of the initial and concluding paragraphs of section 91, federal legislation prevails. It does so, however, only because section 91 expressly provides that it shall. I think that section 95 provides the only instance in the British North America Act of concurrent powers and the express words of the concluding clause of that section were necessary to provide for the supremacy of federal legislation in case of repugnancy. Such supremacy might also be inferred from the use of such a phrase as "notwithstanding anything in this act" as used in the original draft of the amendment, or as used in section 101. In the absence of any such words I suggest that there would be no federal supremacy and for this reason we have suggested that the "but" clause be eliminated altogether.
If, notwithstanding what I have said, it is considered that concurrent powers are not assured without an additional clause, I still feel that because of the nature of our old age pensions legislation, both provincial and federal, "the operation" of provincial legislation is necessarily "affected" by changes in federal legislation. I say this because the legislation contemplates agreements between the dominion and a province the terms of which necessarily vary with changes in legislation. For this reason my suggestion was that the clause should be "but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall detract from the legislative competence of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions."
Nova Scotia is in complete agreement with the suggestion that this amendment should take the form of a new section 95A and that that section should be preceded by a heading "Old Age Pensions."
Nova Scotia is also in agreement with the suggestion that the words "from time to time" should either be deleted from the third draft or inserted at the appropriate point in the second draft.
With respect to the suggestions made by the premier of Quebec referred to in your letter as suggestions numbers 3 and 4, we think that it is perhaps unusual to frame a constitutional amendment in this way. We therefore feel that while we would not recommend the proposal, we would not on the other hand offer any opposition to it if the general view is favourable.
Appendix
Sales Tax
With respect to the indirect taxation amendment. Nova Scotia feels very strongly that the exemption of goods sold for shipment outside a province would offer wide scope for evasion. We do not feel that this exemption is necessary in order to confine the taxing power to taxation within a province, as that confinement follows from the normal territorial limits of the province's jurisdiction.
We feel that the use of the words "sale of goods" is likely to create considerable confusion and that, strictly construed, that phrase may limit unnecessarily provincial taxing power. We have no objection to the clauses aimed at the prevention of discrimination and we suggest that the form proposed by Nova Scotia, as set out in the comments accompanying my letter of the 19th January, last, would overcome the difficulties I have outlined and at the same time would confine provincial taxation power within reasonable limits.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Angus L. Macdonald
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
FREDERICTON The Premier
April 24, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
I wish to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 16 instant respecting the two constitutional amendments that have been under discussion.
I appreciate and welcome your assurance that the federal government does not regard the adoption of the old age pensions constitutional amendment as contingent in any way upon the adoption of the sales tax amendment; and that it is quite agreeable that these two proposed constitutional amendments should be made the subject of two separate and distinct joint addresses to be presented to the parliament of Canada.
It was understood at the federal-provincial conference of December last that the old age pension constitutional amendment would be sought at Westminster in ample time to permit the Canadian parliament at its 1951 session to enact the necessary legislation to implement the pension programme proposed by the federal government to the conference to the end that the new pension plans would be in operation by January 1, 1952.
It is hoped that there will be no further delay in obtaining agreement with the provinces on the language and substance of the pension amendment and that the appropriate joint address will shortly be presented to the two houses of parliament for approval.
I have carefully read your observations regarding the proposed sales tax amendment. With all respect I suggest that you have quite ignored the real points at issue.
You state that "at the conference the provincial governments asked for a constitutional amendment to enable them to occupy jointly with the dominion government a portion of the field of indirect taxation."
On a strained legalistic interpretation of the matter your statement might possibly be upheld. From a realistic and practical viewpoint it does not interpret the situation at all.
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
Under their powers of direct taxation given by the B.N.A. Act the provinces can impose taxes on retail transactions involving a sale of goods. Every province in Canada is exercising that jurisdiction through a gasoline tax. Five provinces are exercising the jurisdiction through general taxes variously known as a purchaser's tax or consumer's tax.
Every retail transaction involving the sale of goods has two aspects to it. On one side it is a sale, on the other side a purchase. Because of the limitations imposed by the B.N.A. Act the provinces have to impose their tax in relation to the purchase side of the transaction, in short as a purchaser or consumer tax.
This has been thought to be a bothersome method of collecting such a levy. In consequence the dominion government was asked last December to agree to put the provinces in a position under the constitution whereby their taxation on retail transactions could be collected on the other aspect-the sales side of the transaction. Because this might give the tax the complexion of indirect taxation the amendment was proposed.
So when one analyses the situation it must, I submit, be evident that the provinces are asking from the dominion government nothing more than a courtesy.
In your letter you stated that the federal government has asked for no quid pro quo or compensation of any kind for agreeing to the proposed amendment. Why should it ask or think of asking to be paid for something that amounts to nothing more than a gesture of co-operation and goodwill?
I regret exceedingly the stand that has been taken by the dominion government. These are days when federal-provincial co-operation should be held precious. I doubt however if it can be made to operate effectively over a one way street.
As stated before we will consent to any tax amendment of the nature proposed that the other provinces agree to even although it is quite devoid of interest for us.
JBM/H
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) John B. McNair
SASKATCHEWAN Premier's Office
Regina, April 25, 1951
Hon. Stuart Garson, K.C., M.P.,
Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Garson:
My colleagues and I have given careful consideration to the latest redraft of the sales tax amendment as set out on page 4 of your letter of April 3, 1951, as follows:
"2A. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the provinces, and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods."
It would appear that the word "provinces" in the tenth line of the redrafted amendment should read "province."
The government of Saskatchewan is prepared to accept the proposed amendment, framed as 2A of section 92 of the British North America Act, as satisfactory.
Our observations on comments that have been made by other provincial governments, as well as yourself, as set out below, are offered as our contribution to the solution of some of the differences which apparently prevent agreement by some provinces.
We are of the opinion that the sales tax amendment, as detailed above, will permit this province to replace its present three per cent direct sales tax with an indirect tax which will provide similar revenue. It can be appreciated, however, that it might not be desirable to limit this indirect tax since it might become necessary in the future, as it is at the present time in the province of New Brunswick, to raise revenue by the imposition of a sales tax at a rate exceeding three per cent. Rising costs of government at the provincial level may compel provinces to seek additional revenue through increasing the indirect sales tax rate in much the same manner as the government of Canada chose to do recently to obtain additional indirect sales tax revenue by increasing the federal sales tax. Under such circumstances, increasing the indirect sales tax rate would be preferable and would avoid undesirable tax duplication by the imposition of a direct sales tax as well as an indirect tax.
We concur in the general principle that the power to 'levy indirect sales taxes by provincial governments ought to be confined to taxation within the province. Hence, we are prepared to accept the phrase "except goods sold for shipment outside the province" as part of the proposed amendment.
It is suggested, however, that this restriction on the power of the provinces to levy an indirect tax on goods sold for shipment outside the province could be improved by inserting the words "by the seller" immediately after the word "shipment" in the exception appearing in parentheses. Such a change would eliminate any argument which might arise by making it clear that the shipment of goods, to be excluded from the tax, must be by the seller in order to come within the exclusion, as otherwise the buyer might contend that he is making a purchase for shipment outside the province, and it would be difficult to check such statements of intention.
With reference to the principle contained in the exemption, it is clear that there would result a discrimination in favour of businesses such as mail order concerns, which ship goods sold at retail to customers outside the province since such goods would be wholly exempt from taxation by any province.
We recognize, therefore, that there is some advantage in having the exemptions on goods sold for shipment outside the province in the discretion of the provincial legislatures, as advocated by the government of Nova Scotia. On the other hand, it might be desirable to permit the province to levy an indirect tax on mail order businesses located in another province which sell goods at retail to persons normally resident in the province. This could be accomplished by the addition of either one of the following provisos to the redraft of the proposed amendment:
"Provided that a tax may be levied on a person outside the province with respect to a sale of goods to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use within the province, and such tax may be recovered

as a debt in the courts of the province where the vendor ordinarily resides."
or
"Provided that the tax may be levied on a person outside the province with respect to a sale to a person ordinarily resident within the province for consumption or use within the province or for shipment to such person within the province and such tax may be recovered as a debt in the courts of the province where such person is ordinarily resident."
It is suggested that such a proviso would meet the problem raised by the government of the province of Nova Scotia.
Summary:
(1)	The government of Saskatchewan is prepared to accept the redrafted sales tax amendment as set out on page 4 of your letter of April 3, 1951.
(2)	The framing of the amendment as 2A under section 92 of the British North America Act meets with our approval.
(3)	The government of Saskatchewan is of the opinion that a sales tax limited to a rate not exceeding three per cent would be satisfactory for a tax that might replace the present Saskatchewan education and hospitalization tax, but we would be prepared to agree to an increase in or the elimination of the limit in the amendment.
(4)	The addition of the words "by the seller" after the word "shipment" in the exception appearing in parentheses is suggested as an improvement to the amendment.
(5)	The addition of a proviso as set out above providing for taxation of persons outside the province is suggested as a technique which might resolve some of the difficulties that have prevented some provinces from accepting your proposals.
The government of Saskatchewan has always viewed the proposed sales tax amendment as quite separate and distinct from the proposed amendment respecting old age pensions. We would urge that these amendments should be treated individually and that they should be made the subject of separate joint addresses of the Senate and House of Commons to His Majesty requesting respectively that these two constitutional amendments be passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom. We would also urge that any difference of opinion that might delay general agreement on the proposed sales tax amendment should neither interfere with the amendment to the British North America Act respecting old age pensions nor prevent the implementation of the old age pension program beginning January 1, 1952.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) T. C. Douglas
PROVINCE OF MANITOBA Office of the Premier Winnipeg
April 26, 1951
The Honourable Stuart Garson, K.C.,
Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Canada.
Dear Mr. Garson:
This will acknowledge your letter of April 3 in connection with the two proposed constitutional amendments respecting old age pensions and retail sales taxes.
Your letter discusses at some length the comments made by the different provinces upon the various drafts which have been submitted, but for
Appendix
purposes of this letter it does not seem necessary to comment upon each of the points you have raised.
In my letter to you dated April 7 I forwarded to you a copy of the two resolutions passed by the Manitoba legislature in connection with the proposed constitutional amendments. By these resolutions the legislature approved the principle of the two amendments and authorized a member of the Manitoba government to negotiate with the federal government as to the most appropriate form.
In accordance with those resolutions, I hereby notify you that we are prepared to concur in the two proposed amendments as submitted in your letter of April 3. These are:
(1)	The proposed amendment with respect to old age pensions as contained on page three of your letter which reads as follows,-
"95A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada, but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law in relation to old age pensions within any province made by the provincial legislature of such province."
(2)	The proposed amendment with respect to a provincial sales tax, as suggested on pages 4 and 5 of your letter, which would add a new head under section 92 reading as follows,-
"2A. The raising of revenue for provincial purposes by indirect taxation within the province in respect of the sale of goods (except goods sold for shipment outside the province) to a buyer for purposes of consumption or use and not for resale, at a rate not exceeding three per centum of the sale price, but not so as to discriminate between sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured within the provinces and sales of goods grown, produced or manufactured outside the province and not so as to discriminate between sellers or classes of sellers of the same class of goods"
In our opinion these new wordings are consistent with those which we approved in the telegram sent to you by our attorney-general, the Honourable C. Rhodes Smith, on April 2. We are therefore prepared to concur in the wordings approved in our telegram or the wordings quoted above.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Douglas Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Office of the Minister of Justice
Ottawa, Canada, May 1, 1951
Special Delivery Airmail
The Honourable A. L. Macdonald, P.C., K.C., L.L.D., Premier of Nova Scotia,
Legislative Building,
Halifax, N.S.
Dear Premier Macdonald:
This will confirm my telephone call to you tonight in which I stated that I had secured the approval of Premier Duplessis to the wording of the proposed amendment to the British North America Act to empower the parliament of Canada to make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada. The wording so approved is as follows:
"Old Age Pensions
94A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to
[Stage Direction]
Appendix
old age pensions affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions."
Following my telephone interviews with the Honourable Mr. Duplessis I put in calls for the other provincial premiers and was able to reach all of them, culminating with the call that was put through to you late this evening after you had returned from your meeting. Each of the other provincial premiers has agreed that this wording is satisfactory to him and his government, with the exception of Premier Campbell of Manitoba who is not in Winnipeg but whose attorney general, the Honourable C. Rhodes Smith, agreed on behalf of the government of Manitoba.
If it is possible for you to concur with this wording I would appreciate very much your wiring me to this effect at your earliest convenience so that we may communicate with all of the provincial premiers confirming this arrangement and can then proceed with the preparation and presentation to the House of Commons of the necessary joint address.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) Stuart S. Garson

[Stage Direction]
MOA 076 41/39 Halifax, N.S. 4 1004A Hon. Stuart Garson,
Minister of Justice, Ottawa.
Re letter May 1 on draft of old age pensions amendment. While we adhere to views expressed earlier as to draftsmanship we are nevertheless prepared to accept amendment in the form suggested in your letter of May 1.
Angus L. Macdonald

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 4, 1951 The Hon. J. B. McNair, K.C., M.L.A.,
Premier of New Brunswick,
Legislative Bldg.,
Fredericton, N.B.
Having just received this morning the last concurrence from a provincial government to reach me that the wording of the new section 94A to be added to the British North America Act to empower the federal parliament to make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada should be as follows:
''Old Age Pensions
94A It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions".
I now hasten to confirm the tentative agreement upon this wording which I finally reached with you in our telephone conversation of May first last. Now that we have secured the concurrence of all the provincial premiers to this wording we are proceeding without delay with the introduction in the House of Commons of a joint address to be approved by that body and the Senate of Canada requesting the parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act by adding to it a new section 94A in the terms above noted. For the
purpose of the record might I ask you at your earliest possible convenience to send me a telegram confirming your approval of the wording of this constitutional amendment.
Stuart Garson
Identical telegram to be sent to:
The Hon. J. W. Jones, M.A., B.Sc.A.
Premier of Prince Edward Island,
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
The Hon. J. R. Smallwood,
Premier of Newfoundland,
St. John's, Newfoundland.
The Hon. E. C. Manning,
Premier of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
The Hon. T. C. Douglas, M.A.
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
The Hon. B. I. Johnson, M.B.E.,
Premier of British Columbia,
Victoria, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 4, 1951
The Hon. D. L. Campbell,
Premier of Manitoba,
Legislative Building,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Having just received this morning the last concurrence from a provincial government to reach me that the wording of the new section 94A to be added to the British North America Act to empower the federal parliament to make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada should be as follows:
''Old Age Pensions
94A It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions."
I now hasten to confirm the tentative agreement upon this wording which in your absence I finally reached with your attorney general in my telephone conversation with him of May first last. Now that we have secured the concurrence of the provincial premiers to this wording we are proceeding without delay with the introduction in the House of Commons of a joint address to be approved by that body and the Senate of Canada requesting the parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act by adding to it a new section 94A in the terms above noted. For the purpose of the record might I ask you at your earliest convenience to send me a telegram confirming your approval of the wording of this constitutional amendment.
Stuart Garson

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 4, 1951
The Hon. Maurice Duplessis, K.C.,
Premier of Quebec,
Legislative Bldg.
Having received this morning the last concurrence of a provincial government to reach me that the wording of the new section 94A to be added to the British North America Act to

empower the federal parliament to make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada should be as follows:
"Old Age Pensions
94A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions."
I now hasten to confirm the tentative agreement upon this wording which I reached with you in our telephone conversation of May 1 last. Now that we have secured the concurrence of all the provincial premiers to this wording we are proceeding without delay with the introduction in the House of Commons of a joint address to be approved by that body and the Senate of Canada requesting the parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act by adding to it a new section 94A in the terms above noted. For the purpose of the record might I ask you at your earliest possible convenience to send me a telegram confirming your approval of the wording of this constitutional amendment.
Stuart S. Garson

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 4, 19S1 The Hon. Angus L. Macdonald, P.C., K.C., LL.D., Premier of Nova Scotia,
Legislative Building,
Halifax, N.S.
Thank you for your wire of this morning confirming your approval of the wording of the new section 94A to be added to the British North America Act to empower the federal parliament to make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada to be as follows:
"Old Age Pensions
94A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions."
Appendix
Now that we have secured the concurrence of all the provincial premiers to this wording we are proceeding without delay with the introduction in the House of Commons of a joint address to be approved by that body and the Senate of Canada requesting the parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act by adding to it a new section 94A in the terms above noted.
Stuart S. Garson

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, May 4, 1951
The Hon. L. M. Frost, K.C.,
Premier of Ontario,
Parliament Bldg.,
Toronto, Ont.
Having received this morning the last concurrence of a provincial government to reach me that the wording of the new section 94A to be added to the British North America Act to empower the federal parliament to make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada should be as follows:
"Old Age Pensions
94A. It is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to old age pensions in Canada but no law made by the parliament of Canada in relation to old age pensions shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to old age pensions."
I now hasten to confirm the tentative oral agreement upon this wording which I reached with you in my office on May 1 last. Now that we have secured the concurrence of all the provincial premiers to this wording we are proceeding without delay with the introduction in the House of Commons of a joint address to be approved by that body and the Senate of Canada requesting the parliament at Westminster to amend the British North America Act by adding to it a new section 94A in the terms above noted. For the purpose of the record might I ask you at your earliest possible convenience to send me a telegram confirming your approval of the wording of this constitutional amendment.
.	Stuart S. Garson
Exports from Canada to China, including Formosa, during the months from July 1950, to March 1951, inclusive.
Item	July 1950	August 1950	September 1950	October 1950	November 1950	December 1950	January 1951	February 1951	March 1951Oatmeal and rolled oats,	$	$	$	$	$ 3,188 64,919	$	$	$	$ 6,3255,692	12,006 8,810	4,836 8,810 1,649 1,439 150 92	
22,065								6,661
									
	2,435								201 4,480
						92,305			
	45,836	47,681	38,230 3,900 574 25,571 11,225						
									
									
	27,639								
									
					io			15	14
			24						
	990 4,168								
									
		20,102 3,956 1,173	23,657						
									
									
			37,801						
	5,676								
			4,284						
		5,007 981							
									
					393				
				4,620					
							302		
		300							
					9,756 3,952				
	3,333		6,059 26						
		1,925							
				862					
					125	100			50
Totals										
	117,852	81,125	150,351	26,298	82,343	92,405	17,278	15	17,731

Questions
[Stage Direction]
Questions


Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What was the total paid by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51?
2.	What person, persons, firms or companies received payments of $25,000 or more under this heading in the said year, what was the actual amount of each payment, and for what service was the payment made in each case?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	$2,742.15.
2.	None.



TRADE WITH RUSSIA AND SATELLITE COUNTRIES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the value of (a) exports; (b) imports, in each of the months of February and March, 1951, to and from (i) Yugoslavia; (ii) Poland; (iii) Czechoslovakia; (iv) Bulgaria; (v) Soviet Russia?
2.	What was the nature of such exports to each of said countries?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1. (a) Exports-
February	March
1951	1951
Yugoslavia	. . $ 50,865	$154,403Poland 	. . 28,961	1,934Czechoslovakia ....	. . 22,050	7,128Bulgaria	. . 7,028	68Soviet Russia 	. . 1,123	-(b) Imports-	Yugoslavia	. . 28,065	*Poland 	. . 180,371	*Czechoslovakia ....	. . 623,295	*Bulgaria	-	*Soviet Russia 	. . 388	**Not yet available.	2.- Yugoslavia	February 1951	March 1951Flour of wheat	. . $ 20,597	$ 10,988Macaroni, vermicelli, etc. -	24Whisky	. . 	38Wines 	. . 12	-Rubber hose 	. . 275	-Wireless apparatus ...	. 6,176	-Ignition apparatus . ..	. 814	-Aircraft parts	. . 7,252	10,118Donations and gifts . . .	. . 15,739	133,235Totals 	. . $ 50,865	$154,403Poland	Hair and bristles . . ..	. . 574	-Wool rags 	. . 7,835	-Donations and gifts . .	. . 20,552	1,934Totals	
$ 28,961	$	1,934

Czechoslovakia
Books 	. 130	-Needles 	. 1,196	-Chemicals 	. 4,598	6,400Donations and gifts .. .	. 16,126	728Totals 	. $ 22,050	$	7,128Bulgaria	Donations and gifts....	. $ 7,028	$	68Soviet Russia	Donations and gifts ...	. $ 1,123	$	-



CANADIAN EMBASSIES IN EUROPE


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has anyone been engaged or retained by the Department of External Affairs since January 1, 1948, to visit Canadian embassies in Europe to give an opinion on the need for redecoration, extra furnishings, etc., for such embassies?
2.	If so, who, and what amount has been paid for expenses of such persons to date?
3.	Has such person a travelling secretary? If so, what is the name of the secretary?
4.	Has such person any authority to purchase furnishings for interior decorating in Europe or elsewhere?


Mr. Lesage:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mrs. Arnold C. Matthews, 50 Lowther avenue, Toronto. No fee or salary was paid; reimbursement was made for travelling expenses in the amount of $2,079.58.
3.	No.
4.	No.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	What activities have been undertaken by the new mobile laboratory of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	What future activities are planned for this laboratory?


Mr. Martin:: 1.	The newly acquired mobile unit of the laboratory of hygiene is conducting a comprehensive bacteriological survey of sanitary conditions in the dairy industry and in restaurants in Prince Edward Island. This investigation is being conducted at the request of and in close co-operation with the provincial department of Health and welfare. The purpose of this investigation is to aid in the establishment by the provincial authorities of practical standards for the control of sanitation in dairies and restaurants.
2.	A study of hospital sanitation in Prince Edward Island will follow the completion of the survey mentioned above.

From June to October the mobile laboratory will conduct bacteriological surveys in shellfish producing areas in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, to determine which areas are safe for the taking of shellfish for human consumption.
Other sanitation studies are also being planned.
The mobile laboratory will be available throughout the entire year to assist provincial departments of health in the investigation of public health problems of immediate concern.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What lawyers who have performed legal services or have been retained as solicitors in any department of the government have each received more than five thousand dollars in fees since January 1, 1947, and what is the amount that has been paid to each of them?


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fulton:: 1.	What was the total paid by the Department of National Defence for professional and special services in the fiscal year 1950-51?
2.	What person, persons, firms or companies received payments of $25,000 or more under this heading in the said year, what was the actual amount of each payment, and for what service was the payment made in each case?


CHARLOTTETOWN PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. McLure:: .
1.	Has the purchase of all properties for the site of the dominion building at Charlottetown been-completed?
2.	If so, what is the street number of each property, the name of the owner from whom purchased, and the price agreed on or paid in each instance?
3.	Are these properties rented at the present time?
4.	If so, what rent is received from same?
5.	Who collects the rents?
6.	How much rent has been collected to date?
7.	What is the cost of rent collections?
8.	Will the new building be constructed this year?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Fair:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Department of Public Works or any minister of the government and any person, persons or organizations, since January 1, 1949, relating to the erection of a post office building at Vermilion, Alberta.
Orders for Returns *


ARMED FORCES, W AIN WRIGHT, ALTA.-HOUSING
Robert Fair: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Department of National Defence or any other department of government and any person, persons or organizations since January 1, 1949, relating to the construction of housing accommodation in or adjacent to the town of Wainwright for the accommodation of certain personnel of the forces and their families.


OLD AGE PENSIONS
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: 
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Geroge A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every hon. member will welcome the announcement that there has been unanimous agreement on the form of the submission to Westminster. Ordinarily the subject matter of this motion would call for some discussion, even though there might be no difference of

Old Age Pensions
opinion as to the wording of the address itself. Knowing, however, that addresses of this kind are dealt with promptly in London, and particularly as in this instance, where there is complete agreement between the federal government and all the provincial governments, and recognizing that there are certain reasons why this address should be available for consideration in London as soon as possible, I think it would be appropriate to defer any discussion of the subject matter of the address until a later occasion. I propose to follow that procedure.
In view of the confidence we have that this matter will be dealt with shortly, I trust that appropriate legislation to carry this matter forward in the house will be prepared at the earliest possible date. I recognize thlre might be a question of procedure as to the appearance of the legislation on the order paper before the British North America Act has in fact been amended, but it might facilitate consideration of the legislation if it could be prepared and distributed, so that hon. members would be able to proceed with it expeditiously when it does come before the house.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing I wish to add at this time, except to say that we are pleased indeed to co-operate with the government in getting this address across to the United Kingdom as rapidly as possible, in the hope that the legislation will be introduced and proceeded with at this session.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I wish merely to express gratification, I think I can say on behalf of all members, that this matter is being dealt with so expeditiously, in the hope that in order to implement the powers being sought, legislation can be brought before the house during the present session of parliament.
In that connection, and while I am on my feet, perhaps I might announce that at the end of the dominion-provincial conference it was stated, in summarizing the agreements that had been reached, that a continuing committee should be set up to consider the kind of legislation which would be appropriate respecting persons between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine, and to what groups thereof and under what conditions it should be made applicable in each province; and that the continuing committee should be under the chairmanship of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and should be brought together as soon as provincial agreements had been reached on the constitutional amendment.
IMr. Drew.]
The Minister of National Health and Welfare proposes to send out, today or tomorrow, invitations to representatives of the provincial governments to meet here on May 21 to consider what legislation would be appropriate as enabling legislation to deal with the group of people between the ages of sixty-five and sixty-nine years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: That votes No. 84 to No. Ill inclusive, and vote 566, of the main estimates 1951-52, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in view of a report which I heard over the radio, and which may have been carried also in the press, to the effect that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs not to speak at this time but to defer any statement until other remarks had been made, I should like to say that I hope that that is not correct, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will introduce this discussion by a statement, in keeping with the understanding that this was to be in the nature of a debate on external affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was my
intention to speak in this discussion, although not-I do not know how this got into the press and the radio reports-to initiate the debate by a general statement on behalf of the government. It is true that I made such a statement last year on a resolution of this kind, but I thought it would be better on this occasion if I postponed my statement until later in the discussion. For one thing that would give more hon. members an opportunity to speak, because in the normal course of events I would be winding up the debate. I think I might make my general statement at that time and deal also with questions which might arise in the course of the discussion.
I was confirmed in this opinion by recalling that I made a general statement on international affairs to the house last February. In that statement, which was an exhaustive one, I gave the policy of the government in respect to matters which were brought up by it. There have been developments in international relations since February, but nothing has happened which has altered the policy of the government in respect to those matters.

I thought, therefore, it would probably meet the convenience of the house if I reserved my statement until later in the discussion.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I suggest that it would be appropriate that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should open the debate, for a number of reasons. It has been indicated for some days that there would be a debate today on external affairs, and a debate tomorrow on national defence. That seemed a particularly appropriate association of departments, because those two departments are closely associated in all that they do.
I do. not wish to interject any unduly controversial remarks at this point, but a number of statements have been made outside this house which suggest reasons why the house should be informed of the policy of the Department of External Affairs, and of this government in external affairs, before we proceed with the debate. At the time the minister of external affairs made his earlier statement in the house he gave no indication that there had been a profound change in our relationship with the United States. I for one cannot regard that as a matter to be treated lightly. The minister of external affairs has seen fit to convey the impression that our ordinary easy and automatic relationships with the United States are not continuing on that basis. No matter what one may think of that statement, it is a most important one and has been so regarded by the press of this country and of the United States as well. Before the house is called upon to discuss external affairs I think the members should be informed as to the way in which there has been a profound change in our dealings with our most important neighbour, a nation that today is the most powerful partner in the task of preserving our freedom and our very civilization.
I cannot think of any subject that is more important, and before any other hon. member is called upon to discuss external affairs the minister should explain fully what he meant when he made that statement outside the house.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think when the Secretary of State for External Affairs is referring his estimates to a committee of this house he should make a statement to open the debate. Incidentally that was the understanding that I had of the course of this debate-that the minister would first make a statement. If he does not make such a statement now, he will close the debate 80709-176
External Affairs
when he speaks, and if he makes some pronouncements then which the house might wish to discuss, the house will be precluded from discussing them. In view of the general international situation I urge upon the minister that he make his statement now and give a lead to the discussion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, while I have no strong views on this matter one way or the other, if it seems to be the wish of the house that I make a statement now I shall be glad to do so. Then when I close the debate I may be able to deal with questions which have been brought up. That will mean that the house will have to listen to me twice.
Before beginning my statement, I should like to say a word or two about the point which has been raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) that in some form and in some way, by a statement made outside this house, I have declared a new policy in regard to our relations with the United States. That does not seem to me to be accurate. If the leader of the opposition will do me the honour of reading the statements that I have made in the house and indeed outside the house, in recent years, I think he will come to the conclusion, as I have, that what I said in Toronto did not in any way, shape or form initiate any new policy in regard to our relations with our great neighbour to the south.
I am not going to go over the whole ground that I tried to go over last February. In my statement this afternoon I shall not touch on many important developments in regard to international affairs. These may arise in the course of the debate, and if so, I shall do my best to deal with them when I wind up the discussion. There are two or three important matters, however, of a somewhat general character, upon which I wish to touch at this time. They affect more particularly our relations with the United States and our relations with other countries in the United Nations in respect of Far Eastern developments which weigh so heavily on our minds today.
One of the cardinal facts in the world today is the emergence of the United States to a position of unquestioned leadership in the free world. A great shift of power and influence has occurred within the last few years, with the result that the United States now stands pre-eminent. By any test it is not only the most powerful of the free states of the world; it is immensely the most powerful. We in Canada know the United States so well that we can view this great and historic development without apprehension, and feel indeed relief and satisfaction that

External Affairs
power is in the hands of a nation which has such a deeply rooted democratic tradition, whose people have no desire to dominate other countries, and which has shown its good will towards less fortunate peoples on so many occasions by acts of magnanimity and generosity.
This feeling, I think, is increased by a consideration of what our position would be today if the United States had not decided to assume the responsibilities throughout the world which its new position has thrust upon it. We have good reason to believe that it will discharge those responsibilities with conscience, courage, and respect for the interests of others. The predominance of the United States, however, is bound to raise new problems for all those countries which share its values, and which are associated with it, and proud to be associated with it, in the defence of freedom. These new problems must be understood and must be solved if friction is to be kept to a minimum and the forces of freedom are to be strong and united.
In considering, for instance, Canada's relations with the United States it is not enough to take refuge in thought or in words, as I see it, in the usual cliches of 135 years of peace or the unguarded boundary. Certainly in my view any spokesman for the Canadian government or the Canadian people on external affairs has a duty to go deeper than this in the examination of this important question. Such an examination can also lead to a clarification of issues only if it is made within the wider framework of the position of the United States as the leader of our free alliance against the dangers which threaten us. The maintenance, let alone the strengthening, of an alliance of free nations is never easy, and requires tolerance, patience and great understanding. It is not easy in war; it is not easy in times of normal peace. It is especially difficult, I think, in a period such as the present of part war and part peace, with all its frustrations, tensions and anxieties.
Therefore I am sure we all agree that this imposes on the peoples of all free states a special obligation to face the problems of their mutual relationships with candour and frankness, but also with a firm resolve to understand each other's points of view. It seems to me that the unity of the free world would be in real jeopardy if there were no free discussion of our common objectives and of the possibly different means by which they can best be reached. Much of that discussion will and should be carried on confidentially between governments, but the people have a right to be kept informed of the problems involved and the principles of 
action which the government may think to be necessary for their solution. Therefore honest discussion of the issues before us, so long as it is conducted in cool and reasonable terms, will not weaken the free world. I am convinced on the contrary that it is an indispensable part of the process of developing our united strength, although of course in this kind of discussion one always runs the risk of misinterpretation and the placing of a wrong emphasis on what may have been said.
In all these relations between the governments in our alliance of free countries, no single government can of course surrender its judgment into the keeping of any other government, however close and friendly that government may be. It may at times, however -and I have said this before, although it is sometimes forgotten-have to yield to the collective judgment of the group reached after discussion and consultation. That is the only way that democracy can be carried on within our own country. It is the only way that democracy can be carried on internationally. The decision when to hold out and when to yield is often a terribly difficult one to make. Yet it is on that decision that the unity and close co-operation among members of our alliance will so often depend; and on that so much else depends. Oversensitiveness and obstinacy, on the one hand, over the maintenance of national rights and national sovereignty, and arrogance or carelessness, on the other, in overriding them, might in either case produce serious and even dangerous division among the countries of the world.
That division, which would lead possibly to disunity and even disruption, gives the foe that threatens us his greatest comfort and his greatest opportunity. Particularly during these times-I am sure we all agree with this-must the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada maintain and strengthen their special ties of friendship within the larger group. It would be folly to think that any one of us can go it alone. It would also be a fatal error, made previously by two dictators, for any potential enemy to think that we intend to take that course, folly also for him to draw wrong conclusions from that mistaken interpretation of our democratic differences of opinion. On the big issues we stand together within our countries as well as between our countries, even though we may sometimes seem verbally separated. It is, I think, as much the responsibility of public and press opinion as of governments to keep these differing voices from resulting in different policies. Policy for the free world must be forged not on a shifting basis of

emotion but on the hard anvil of facts. Only in that way can it be well-tempered and strong.
One of the most important of these facts is that of persistent Soviet communist hostility. Another is, as I have said, the new position of power and responsibility of the United States as the leader of the free world. This latter fact, as I see it, means that our own relations with the United States have entered upon, a new phase within the last few years. It does not mean that they should not be or cannot be as close and friendly as they have been in the past. Canadians, with very few exceptions, indeed-and those exceptions mostly of the communist persuasion-all hope this will be the case and want to do what they can to make it possible and even easy. Certainly that is the policy of this government, as it has been throughout the years.
Well, what is the nature of this change I have been talking about, and not only inside the house? Hitherto questions which from time to time we have had to discuss and decide with the United States were largely bilateral matters between neighbours. They arose from such things as border disputes, differences over the diversion of water and so on, or had to do with commerce back and forth across the boundary. Of course they were often complicated and difficult enough. Now, however, we are not only neighbours but allies. I think perhaps that is the simplest way to indicate the change that has come over the nature of our relations with the United States. We have always been good neighbours, accustomed to settling our differences in a neighbourly spirit. Now we are good allies, and as allies we must do our best to settle, in our customary friendly way, such differences as may exist between us from time to time. But the questions we shall have to discuss in this way will often be of a new character arising from our senior and junior partnership in a common association. They will often deal with the policies to be followed by that association in the North Atlantic pact or within the United Nations, very often indeed within the United Nations.
It is perhaps not unnatural that many people in Canada and the United States have not yet realized this change. It has come about rather suddenly, and I doubt if in either country we have yet completely adjusted ourselves to it. On Tuesday of last week, I believe, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) gave an illustration of one of the new categories of subjects under discussion between Canada and the United States when he announced in this house the recommendations of the permanent joint board on 80709-176-J
External Affairs
defence, which had been accepted by both governments, for the revision of the lease under which the United States holds certain bases in Newfoundland. The discussions on this subject between Canada and the United States were carried on in a friendly and cooperative spirit, as is our habit, and they have resulted in a compromise which I think will commend itself to the house as reasonable in the circumstances. The problem itself arises out of the defence requirements of the United States on Canadian soil, requirements not merely for its own security but for the security of the free world. It also arises, however,- out of the necessity of the United States meeting these legitimate requirements in a way which recognizes Canadian jurisdiction and, even more important, Canadian self-respect.
In an age of atomic weapons and long-range bombers Canada is obviously now of far greater importance to the defence of North America and the north Atlantic area than ever before. For that reason, and because we are now joined as allies in the North Atlantic treaty, inevitably from time to time there will be other defence questions of very great importance to both countries which must be discussed. I have no doubt that we shall be able to find satisfactory solutions to those questions as well, but it will be easier to find them if we in Canada continue to remember the very heavy responsibility the United States has shouldered for the common defence, and if the United States continue to appreciate that the alliance in which we are joined with them will not be as strong as it should be unless the various defence arrangements which may be necessary on our soil are worked out in such a way that they will commend themselves wholeheartedly to Canadian public opinion.
Another-and I suppose at the moment the most pressing-problem we face with the United States, because it is indeed a phase of United States-Canadian relations though it is also of far wider and deeper significance, involving as it does the whole question of global war or global peace, is the policy to be adopted at the present time in Korea. For the time being I think the role of diplomacy in Korea is secondary, because the scene there is now dominated by the heavy fighting which has been going on for the past few weeks. The first wave of the new Chinese attack has been checked and broken by United Nations forces, but the attack is not yet spent-far from it. This is probably just a lull before another storm. So it seems to me that for some time to come, while this heavy fighting is going on, the task of upholding the purpose and will of the United Nations in Korea must rest upon

External Affairs
the fighting men who have withstood so courageously the attacks made upon them by much more numerous enemy forces. One Canadian battalion, as we know, has had an important part in the recent fighting. Additional Canadian troops have now arrived in Korea, and before many more days have passed a full Canadian brigade group will be in action. These men, along with those of the other United Nations forces, and particularly the forces of the United States, will have more effect upon the course of events in Korea over the next few weeks than any diplomatic moves; and I know the thoughts of every one of us will be with them, and perhaps especially with those of our own men who are going into action for the first time.
In those circumstances perhaps it would not be appropriate for me to say too much about the actual situation in Korea, but there are a few things I should like to say. The present Chinese attack must be broken before we can again begin to entertain any hope of a peaceful and honourable settlement there. When it has been broken, as we hope it will be, and1 with heavy losses to the enemy, the Chinese communists may be in a mood to negotiate an honourable settlement-the only kind of settlement we have ever contemplated-or at least to desist from further attacks. While I think it would be quite unrealistic to hold out hope of an early settlement in Korea, or even of an early end to the fighting, nevertheless we should always remember that the United Nations stands ready to negotiate, though not to betray its trust or yield to blackmail. The statement of principles adopted by the general assembly by an overwhelming majority on January 13 last, which would provide for a cease-fire to be followed by a Korean settlement and by the negotiation of a wide range of Far Eastern problems, still represents the considered opinion of the United Nations. If the Chinese government and the North Korean government wish to take advantage of the offer contained in that statement, it is open to them to do so. Of their willingness to do so, however, there is no sign whatever. The approaches made to Peking by the good offices committee established by the United Nations assembly have all been rebuffed. The North Korean government, in a broadcast message as late as April 18, has repeated its determination to drive the United Nations forces from the peninsula. We can only hope that the heavy losses which the aggressors 
are now suffering and will suffer in Korea may produce a more accommodating frame of mind.
In the meantime, the United Nations forces are heroically and skilfully fulfilling the task which has been given to them, which is the defeat of armed aggression in Korea. This is-and it should not be forgotten-the sole military objective of the forces of the United Nations in Korea, the defeat of aggression so that a free, democratic and united Korea can be established. It is also worthy of note, I believe, that, as Mr. Warren Austin, the United States delegate to the security council, said1 on May 1-I quote from his statement:
The United Nations has not declared, nor has it ever been askedi to declare, that the political objectives-
That is, a democratic, free and unified Korea.
-must be achieved by military means. In fact, the emphasis has been quite the contrary.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is not an aim or objective of the United Nations in its Korean policy to interfere in the internal affairs of any Asian country, to replace one regime by another. Its aim, as I said, is to defeat aggression and so prevent other acts of aggression by proving that aggression does not pay. To some that may seem to be too limited an objective. On this point the well known columnist Mr. Walter Lippmann had this to say the other day-and I quote from his article:
Only a limited objective can be obtained by a war which is limited. The question now is whether the country-
He was referring to his own country, the United States.
-will agree with reasonable unity that our military objective in Korea is the limited one of repelling aggression south of the 38th parallel and restoring the South Korean republic. We can, and we should, still hold it as a political and diplomatic objective that Korea should eventually be united by democratic means. But we cannot unify Korea by a war confined to the Korean peninsula, and we shall get nowhere in this controversy until we make the choice of limited objectives out of a limited war or unlimited objectives out of an unlimited war.
It is also sometimes loosely said that the United Nations forces are fighting in Korea to defeat communism. There is perhaps some colour for this mistake, since the aggression perpetrated is by communist states, and has its roots in the totalitarian communist nature of those states. Free men everywhere must be determined to resist communism. But it is a confusion, I think, of categories to think that communism as a doctrine or form of government must be fought by armed forces,

or that such is the purpose of the United Nations military action in Korea. When communism, or indeed fascism, results in acts of military aggression, that aggression should be met by any form of collective action, including military collective action, which can be made effective. But the purpose of such action is to defeat aggression. Communism itself, as a reactionary and debasing doctrine, must be fought on other planes and in different ways; by the use of economic, social, political and moral weapons. As Sir Norman Angell put it in a letter to the New York Times the other day:
The vital distinctions in this matter are not difficult or very obscure. We can overcome, and still better, deter, military aggression with military force . . . But if we use military power to dictate or to appear to dictate to other nations, Asiatic or European, what social or political or economic system they may adopt for themselves, we shall awaken a nationalism which in the end will defeat us.
Since the United Nations objective in Korea, then, is to defeat aggression, it follows, I think, that the methods used should be designed to limit and localize the conflict and not to spread it. As long ago as August 31, 1950, I said in this house that it was not the purpose of this government to support any course of policy which would extend the scope of the present conflict in Korea, a conflict which should be confined and localized if it is in our power to do that; also that United Nations policy should be to avoid giving anyone else an excuse for extending the conflict. Mr. Speaker, that is still our view.
One way by which the conflict could be spread would be by authorizing the United Nations commander in Korea to conduct aerial bombing of China. As I said on April 26 last in the house, it is possible to visualize a situation in which immediate retaliatory action without prior consultation might be unavoidable in pursuing enemy bombers back to, and in attempting to destroy, the Manohurian air bases from which they came, ft is our view, however, that the bombing, as well as the blockading, of China should, if at all possible, be avoided, since such action would involve grave risk of extending the fighting without, as we see it, any corresponding assurance that such extension would end the war. The history, the position, the social and economic organization, and the political situation in China would not seem to give much hope for any' such decisive result from such limited action. Indeed, it may be felt, on the contrary, that this limited action which has been suggested would inevitably develop into unlimited action against China, about the possible result
External Affairs
of which the Japanese perhaps are best fitted to give testimony. One result we can, however, expect with some certainty, and that is great satisfaction in Moscow over such a development. It may be that the Chinese communists, by indulging in massive air activity over Korea, will make some kind of retaliation necessary. They have, however, not yet taken such action, and in that sense have not yet conducted an allout war against the United Nations forces in Korea. As General Bradley put it in an address in Chicago on April 17:
Communist air intervention has not been a factor in the ground action to date. Neither has it been any serious threat to our air force.
If the Chinese communists change that situation, the responsibility for the consequence would rest entirely with them and not with the United Nations forces.
I am, of course, Mr. Speaker, aware that this policy of restraint in which all the governments who have forces in Korea concur to the best of my knowledge, may complicate the problems facing the United Nations commanders in Korea. These problems, however, in the opinion of many, would be immensely more complicated if the fighting were extended to China.
The question, I think, above all other questions at the moment, is, in short, whether aerial bombardment of points in China, together with a naval blockade and the removal of all restrictions from Chinese forces in Formosa, would be sufficient to bring China's participation in the war in Korea to an end without bringing about intervention by the forces of the Soviet union. It was felt by many last November that if United Nations forces advanced to the very borders of Manchuria and cleared north Korea of the enemy, the war would then end; that there would be little risk of communist China intervening, or, that, if it did, the intervention could be contained and defeated. As we know, and as I said last February in the house, it did not work out that way, for one reason or another. In the light of that experience, we should, I think, before we take any new decisions which will extend the war, be reasonably sure that this extension will have compensating military and political advantages. Let us not forget we would be playing for the highest stakes in history.
Another way in which the conflict could be extended, in the hope that it would be ended sooner, would be by facilitating and assisting the return to the mainland of China of the forces at present in Formosa under

External Affairs
the command of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. We should remember, of course, that these forces, or forces under the same command, have been driven from China by their own countrymen. The question to be answered, therefore, is this:	Is there any
reason to believe that these Chinese nationalist forces now in Formosa would have greater success in China than they had previously, unless they were supported by troops and equipment from other countries which could ill be spared for such a hazardous venture, with all its possible long-drawn-out consequences?
The desire to localize the conflict and prevent it from spreading remains, then, our policy, though we must recognize that while it takes only one to start a fight, it takes two *to limit, as well as two to settle, a fight.
May I now say just a word in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, about our views-I have been asked about this in previous statements in the house-on the situation in Formosa. I believe that this island should be neutralized while fighting is going on in Korea. I have expressed that view previously. Certainly the United States of America cannot be expected to permit the Peking government to take over Formosa while that government is defying, and fighting against, the United Nations. It does not follow, however, that if and when the Korean conflict can be ended satisfactorily, we should refuse to discuss the future of Formosa within the context of international agreements that have already been reached concerning it, and indeed within the context of the United Nations charter. Any other course would, I think, result in implacable hostility between the United Nations and whatever government was in control of China at the time the war ended.
Until that war ends, however, and China abandons her attack against the United Nations in Korea, there can be, I think, no question of even discussing whether Formosa should be handed over to the Peking regime; at least that is our view. The same, I think, applies to recognition of that regime in Peking. There can be no question even of considering it while the Chinese defy the United Nations in Korea and fight against our forces there.
Nor do we think it realistic or right, while communist China is fighting in Korea, to include the Peking government in the current discussions of a Japanese peace treaty. In this regard, as in the case of the disposition of Formosa, the decision as to who shall talk and sign for China might well, I think- and even any discussion of this matter-be postponed until the Korean war is ended.

These are two questions which I know are uppermost in our minds these days. What is going on in the Far East? What is the policy of the alliance which has been built up, and which is getting stronger every day, to meet the dangers ahead, and within that alliance what is the relationship of a junior partner like Canada to its neighbour and its very senior partner in this association, the United States of America? It is not easy these days to be too optimistic about the course of events; but time is going on, and while time is going on we are getting stronger. In that sense, but only in that sense, time may be said to be on our side if we take advantage of it. If we do take advantage of it, and if we grow stronger militarily, economically and in every other way, then I think, as I have said before, that we have no reason to regard the future with panic or despair. But the remedy, Mr. Speaker, rests with us.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate on the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to refer the estimates of his department to the standing committee, I desire first of all to make reference to the work of the committee itself. In some respects the standing committee on external affairs stands alone so far as house committees are concerned. It was formed in 1945 and has functioned, we think successfully, ever since. In that committee the estimates of the Department of External Affairs have been considered session by session, and in a cool and dispassionate way the work of the committee has proceeded from time to time.
Few committees have found hon. members more satisfied with their work and the way in which it is carried on. In saying that I want to pay a special tribute to the hon. member who since the inception of that committee has been its chairman. I refer to the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), who has our confidence, and who has done a magnificent job in that capacity. Because of his temperament, his ability and his capacity, to say nothing of the industry that he has displayed in connection with the work of the committee, he is eminently suited for the post.
Particularly in view of the increasing complexity of international affairs, I am sure hon. members appreciate the fact that the work of the Department of National Defence is inextricably linked with that of external affairs. Time after time hon. members on this side of the house have made the urgent plea that the estimates and the activities of the Department of National

Defence be subjected to the same kind of comprehensive review as is directed toward those of the Department of External Affairs. While I have not made the plea before, although it has been offered by other members of this group and, I suggest, more effectively and more eloquently than I shall be able to do it, I now express the hope that, having in mind the success of the committee dealing with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, the government will now see fit to take the further and the obvious step of setting up a special committee to study the estimates and operations of the Department of National Defence. This, I suggest, is a department the activities of which are akin to and closely tied up with those of the Department of External Affairs. When the committee begins its deliberations, and proceeds to deal with the estimates at hand, I shall have some suggestions to make.
I would hope that this year the committee would take the time to give careful consideration to the report of Canada in relationship to the United Nations because, for the last five or six years, not only has this country legislated in its domestic parliament here in Ottawa, but it has been legislating as well in what might be described as a world parliament. Too frequently hon. members in the house, and members of the public, are apt to take the deliberations in the United Nations too much for granted. In the committee on external affairs I should like to see made an intense study of the Canada-United Nations report for 1950. It contains the proceedings of United Nations sittings during the last year.
Further than that, I should like to see called to the committee those who were parliamentary representatives as well as departmental representatives, of whom there were quite a number. These representatives would be in a position to give a report on their stewardship rendered so effectively in New York. I should hope that in the committee we would have the opportunity to examine and to discuss in detail the work these members of parliament and civil servants did, in their efforts to put Canada's best foot forward at those important meetings.
We spend about $2,500,000 for representation on various conferences. Of this sum about $1,500,000 is allocated to expenditures in connection with the United Nations organization, assessment being made on a prescribed basis. These are facts the public ought to know. The budget in this respect ought to be scrutinized carefully, and a careful analysis made. As in connection with other estimates, hon. members have the right to
External Affairs
know exactly what is being done in the various branches of United Nations activities.
May I add one personal comment. Last year at meetings of the United Nations we were privileged and honoured to have R. Gerald Riddell, who has since been called to his reward, as our permanent representative. His name has been mentioned before in debates in the house, but this is the first opportunity I have had to refer to him. Gerry Riddell's death was a great loss to the United Nations and to the parliament and people of Canada. I knew of no more industrious, competent or capable member in any delegation than was Gerry Riddell, and I know he was so regarded by representatives from every nation in the world. Canada always had a worthy advocate to speak on its behalf, and one who commanded the respect and confidence of the representatives of all countries with whom he came in contact.
Perhaps it would be of interest to add that I have another special reason for referring to Gerry Riddell because at the end of a line drawn for sixteen or seventeen miles straight through the county of Peel, which it is my honour to represent, one finds the paternal homestead of the late Gerry Riddell. Another three or four miles farther down that line we come to the maternal homestead of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). At the end of the line, still farther down, at the boundary between Halton and Peel, is the homestead of Mr. John Watkins, our charge d'affaires in Moscow. In between and also in the same line, is the homestead of the member for Peel. I mention this because it may be of interest to others who are not as close to that county as we are.
In passing may I refer to two important figures with whom through the years many of us came in contact, in a greater or lesser degree. I mention first the Right Hon. Ernest Bevin, whom we met originally at the first general assembly meeting in London. The late Mr. Bevin was a dogged advocate for peace in his time, and so expressed himself at every meeting of the United Nations he attended. I have always felt that his unifying influence in politics in Britain during the war, and that same influence which was carried into the days of peace through his great work in the United Nations, is something for which the world is greatly indebted. It owed that debt to a great statesman and a champion of those things that are best in our public life.
I should like also to refer to another eminent world statesman who has passed to his reward only within the last few days, the late Senator Arthur Vandenberg. I remember so well witnessing at San

External Affairs
force, strength, might and power in these very difficult days. I think it will be understood and agreed, however, by most members in the house that force, strength, might and power alone are not the only weapons that this nation and free powers everywhere must consider in stopping imperialist communist aggression. I think that perhaps brings up this point, that this year we are spending on the other arm of our attack on communism, shall we say, $25 million on the Colombo plan for economic development in southeast Asia.
I realize, and I think the house will realize, that this is not the time to be making unnecessary contrasts between expenditures. Actually expenditures on military matters and defence generally are perhaps only in their infancy because the problem of preparedness still remains a very serious one for all of us on this continent. It is a serious one particularly when one reads the remarks made in the United States congress only last week by a senator who was a member of the United States delegation to the United Nations this year, and a man whose responsibility and competence are beyond question. Indicating the difficulties and the acute position in which this continent finds itself, I should like to refer to the startling words of Senator Lodge. In Time magazine for May 7, 1951, I find the following:
Best estimates credit Russia with a tactical air force of 16,000 to 20,000 planes, said Lodge, of which about 9,000 are free for an attack in the west. To assure air superiority to the proposed North Atlantic army, Lodge calculated that the U.S. and its allies need 18,000 tactical aircraft ready for battle. How do those figures stack up against U.S. strength, present and planned? At the moment, the air force has little better than nine fighter bomber wings-some 675 aircraft-available for support of U.S. ground forces overseas . . . "That," said Senator Lodge, "gives you some idea of the jam we are in."
When I call upon the government to give serious consideration to increasing the other arm, I do not want it to be understood that it is to be done at the expense of the critical military position in which this continent finds itself today. I do want to point out, however, that we must not neglect our economic defences because such countries as our sister units of our own commonwealth, India and Pakistan, are directly in the pathway of imperial communism. They are fertile grounds for would-be world dominators. I think a word ought to be said for the Indian and Pakistani people who have gone as far as they have in attempting to be bulwarks of democracy in the Far East. True, on certain occasions we are unable to go along with them on some world issues, but nevertheless they are sisters in the commonwealth. They are in the midst of a giant revolution
[Mr. Graydon.l
in Asia where a great melting pot exists, and today any widening of the breach between the east and the west would in my opinion not only be immediately fatal but would be fatal also in the very important days that lie ahead.
I have always felt that Canada and India are the two key nations in any close liaison between the Orient and the Occident. From the standpoint of our position in world affairs generally it seems to me that these two nations should do everything possible to maintain a close liaison, and in doing so to maintain a closer knit relationship between the east and the west. I admit that something has been done in connection with the Truman point four program of economic assistance to south and southeast Asia. I know there are plans oin. foot and on paper with respect to the Colombo commonwealth plan, but one thing that has always concerned me is that there has not been a close enough co-ordinated over-all plan for help from this part of the world for those underprivileged and underdeveloped countries.
As far back as last summer I suggested to the government and the Canadian people that we ought to have some kind of scheme, something in the nature of a Pacific economic pact, under which any assistance from this country would be properly co-ordinated and become much more effective than the hit-or-miss arrangements that have been put into effect from time to time. It seems to me that we in Canada have a grand chance to do something worth while not only from the point of view of the Canadian people but from the point of view of our sister dominions in the Orient, which in addition would show the world that we have a generosity and benevolence equal to that of any other country in the world. In setting up any such scheme, however, we must be careful not to put any of these people under the means test. I should like to see any policy we might adopt in this connection one which would integrate our economic progress with theirs in such a way that they might be brought up to the economic levels we enjoy in this part of the world.
Perhaps not every hon. member realizes just what conditions are in some of the lands to which I have been referring. In India, to take that one country as an example, according to research made by those in charge of the point four program, conditions are startling; and I think they should be made known to the Canadian people. I should like to quote just one paragraph from this report:
For example, in underdeveloped, overpopulated countries such as India, China, and Egypt, where the

average expectation of life at birth is in the neighbourhood of 30 years, only 54 out of every 100 children born ever reach the age of 15 and enter the ages of maximum economic productivity. Of those who reach young adulthood all but 15 die or are incapacitated long before completing the normal span of working life to the age of 60. In contrast, in the more highly developed areas 02 of every 100 children born reach the age of 15 and 70 live a productive life span to the age of 60. Reduction of the death rate in the underdeveloped areas will mean an increase in the human resources available for production in proportion to population.
At the same time improvements in health and physique will bring about greater capacity on the part of the individual worker. It is not surprising, for example, that the undernourished eastern peasant, afflicted With chronic malaria and host to a rich assortment of internal and external parasites, should commonly be a weak and lethargic worker.
The figures with respect to income are equally startling when compared with those of the western world. According to the last compilation of these figures the annual per capita income in the United States, covering men, women and children, was $554, while the figure for Canada for the same year was $389. The figure for India, however, was only $34. There is also the question of illiteracy. Back in 1930, which seem to be the last figures compiled for this purpose, 91 of every 100 people in India could not either read or write. That may give some idea of the problem facing the Orient which constitutes a challenge to all of us. Where we have something like 800,000 farms in Canada, there are 800,000 villages in India. It is interesting to note that four of every five people in the British commonwealth live in Asia.
I believe something ought to be done to speed up both the point four and Colombo plans, because there is nothing in which time is of greater importance. In my opinion aid to Asia is one of the most important of all the weapons we may use today to provide a bastion for democracy in that part of this power-drunk, war-torn world. But apart altogether from the point four program and the commonwealth Colombo plan for assistance to certain free nations for development purposes, the plight of the famine-stricken people of India and Pakistan calls for a supplementary short-range policy of immediate help. Starvation does not delay its paralysing work or wait for legislators to act. The western powers, including our own, must not be found asleep at the switch at a time when the train of golden opportunity is arriving. We should be doing something now to relieve the intense suffering of our sister commonwealth nations in Asia. It is in time of grief, need and acute distress that nations, as well as people, are most sensitive to the reaction of their friends. We should
External Affairs
be demonstrating to those in the great subcontinent of India our practical generosity and our sympathetic understanding. Red China has done it. For the second time since the famine reached its most devastating stage she has made available food supplies when her own larders are relatively empty. Russia, too, has made a political gesture of help. Other countries have given of their substance as well, but southeast Asians know where the most abundant wealth and resources are to be found, and for that reason the challenge to this continent becomes the greater. I believe the Canadian people as a whole want to help India and Pakistan, and I am offering the suggestion that if the government is reluctant to give a lead as a government to an emergency program for relief in these stricken areas, they should at least open the door and give Canadian citizens the opportunity of making their own individual contributions of food, clothing, medical supplies and the like and provide for the collection, transportation and effective distribution of same to the Indian .and Pakistani people. We should show these friends on the other side of the world that Canada cares.
In conclusion I should like to refer to one matter which has to do more particularly with the domestic field. The problems being faced by democratic nations in attempting to put on a wartime footing countries which are at peace cannot be overestimated. One of the things that concern many of us is the fact that there is an ebb and flow of interest and concern which flares up and then perhaps subsides into a period almost of complacency. That has happened before in this country; it may happen again. I feel it is the job of the government to give leadership. After all, the government has been given the job of leading the Canadian people, at the behest of the people as expressed at the polls some two years ago. I think it is important that the people be told in no uncertain terms exactly what is required of them, and just what our position is in connection with this struggle for peace. It should be indicated to the people across Canada in unmistakable language the patience, tenacity and perseverance that is going to be required in order to carry forward the great program of preparedness prior to the settlement of this impasse. They will want to know what is expected of them. They will want to know it in the terms that they understand. After all if we have, from time to time, the ebb and flow of concern and complacency, it will interfere with our preparedness program; it will interfere with whatever long pull there may be in connection with our preparedness plan. I see that

External Affairs
this very important matter has been referred to by the Hon. Herbert Morrison, foreign secretary of Great Britain. While perhaps many of us would not be prepared to agree with him that there will probably be a fifteen or twenty-year long pull, there will at least be a pull of some length of time. I believe that we have to steel ourselves to the emergency which faces us in the future. I believe that can best be done if the government will give the leadership that really leads in a case where leadership is urgently required.
During that period while we are preparing for such eventualities as may come, we must remember that at home we have our responsibilities and our challenges. While we are fighting for democracy, we must always remember that the democracy for which we are fighting is worth applying in our ordinary life in Canada.
I close my remarks this afternoon by repeating a quotation which is credited to Rene Grousset, and which I think perhaps covers the point I have made with respect to our own position in Canada much more clearly than any words I could have used. This is what he says:
In general, no civilization is destroyed from the outside unless it has already decayed from within; no empire is conquered from abroad, unless it has first destroyed itself. We are still the masters of our own destiny, and not mere spectators of our own downfall.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I first want to say that I think the house was very glad indeed that the minister of external affairs made a statement in opening this debate. The statement which he made, so far as I am concerned, to some extent has narrowed down the debate and made it unnecessary for me to say some of the things I intended to say. I quite agree with him that at this stage of our history it is essential that we shall maintain unity among democratic nations. No nation must dominate, and a decision once taken by the group must be supported by all the members of that group. I believe that is real democracy in action. Sometimes democratically adopted decisions do disturb minorities, but nonetheless under such grave circumstances minorities must fall in with the views of the majority unless the decisions do violence to their principles.
I quite agree with him, too, that aggression must be met by military force, but that communism, as we call it, cannot be met by force but must be met on the economic and social field. Many years ago someone said that if you would understand the external policies of a nation, you must first of all understand its domestic conditions and its internal policies. I think that has been

brought home to thinking people in our own country and elsewhere in recent years more than ever before. Where there is dictatorship and oppression at home, there is constant provocation and unrest with the threat of war abroad. It is in this respect that the economic situation in some areas and the international situation which arises out of economic conditions is, in my view, to be emphasized in a debate of this description.
When the United Nations was set up at San Francisco, member nations dedicated themselves to the advancement of freedom, of economic standards of living, as a means of preventing international misunderstanding and future wars. Yet today, in countries which adhere to the charter, millions of wretched people are the victims of despotic rulers, while millions of others are imprisoned in concentration camps because of their refusal to accept complete domination of their minds and thoughts by powerful and intolerant dictatorships. Nor must we forget that in other countries, including Canada, with democratic political institutions and ways of life, freedom for some, and at times indeed for many, has too often meant freedom to live in misery, want and despair. It is against this background of arbitrary rulers, despotic dictatorships and incomplete democracy that I wish to consider the world situation in this discussion.
We believe that the struggle in which we are now engaged, and which incidentally may last for many years, is for the liberation of the human spirit as well as for the economic advancement of individuals everywhere. Yet the real freedom of body and mind depends to a very large extent on economic liberation. We in this house, of course, all adhere to the conception of political freedom and democracy. There is no difference between us in this respect. But if we are to achieve the liberty of mind and thought which must be a positive aim of democratic peoples, Canada itself must move forward steadily towards the achievement of more economic and industrial democracy to accompany the political freedom which we all cherish. Hitler attempted to destroy political freedom over a large part of Europe, and he was in turn destroyed. But a large part of the world today is controlled by dictators who have rejected political and religious freedom as a principle of human progress, and who preach that social justice and economic stability must be purchased by the acceptance of their control and their tyranny over both the minds and bodies of the population to whom they dictate.
Their success, in large part, has been due to the failure of democracy as we know it to meet the vital needs of mankind. They

know that wherever there is starvation, want and despair, their propaganda will fall on fertile ground. In saying that, I am not either underestimating or decrying both the urgency and seriousness of the task of organizing the defence of the democracies in a military sense. What I am saying is that there is danger to the democratic world if nearly all our energies and resources are used up in building our military defences. This, of course, is one purpose of the Atlantic alliance. But one must realize that this alliance, based on co-operative effort in the military field, has been made difficult because the basic principle of the economic program is not co-operation but competition. Thus we see the efforts of the European nations to rebuild their economic and military strength made exceedingly difficult because of the competitive scramble for raw materials. That hap been demonstrated by the resultant high prices and threats of serious stoppages in production in the United Kingdom and in western Europe, because of the lack of vital chemicals, scarce metals and other supplies. Ir. the last war we found that competitive industry would not suffice. Now it seems that again we have to learn exactly the same lesson.^ Thus, among the members of the Atlantic alliance co-operation must replace cutthroat competition in those respects.
Neither can we afford to omit or restrain the equally important task of assisting in the improvement of the economic circumstances both of our own people and of the rest of the world, and we believe that means world-wide co-operative enterprise, too.
This party has I think endeavoured to emphasize this point of view both in parliament and across the country. We have supported, and we will support all the necessary undertakings and defence preparations essential to the protection of what we call the free world. We recognize of course that even among the so-called free nations there are varying degrees of freedom, and that it is not wholly free. Yet the limited freedoms which part of the free world enjoys are worth protecting, because they provide the foundations of the greater freedoms at which we all must aim.
Our external policy must take into account the fact that in parts of the world, and particularly in Asia, the rising tide of nationalism, of dire poverty of countless millions present us with both an opportunity and a threat. Because democracy has failed in the past to meet the desires and needs of such depressed peoples, totalitarian communist propaganda therefore has fallen on fertile ground. The success of the communist party in such areas indicates that they have seized
External Affairs
on those desires, the desires of the distressed masses, both in Europe and in Asia. It is, for example, not without significance, I think, that in the early stages of communist revolution in Russia itself, in Poland, in Hungary and now in Asia, they have made use of the peasants' need for land as a principal means of securing the support of exploited landless peasants. Whatever their future aims may have been, they have invariably placed the peasantry in possession of the land, even if subsequently they substituted collective state farms, thus eliminating both individual and co-operative ownership of the soil.
I do not think that in our dealings with backward areas we have paid sufficient attention to such basic needs of exploited populations. Indeed, no less a person than Kagawa, the famous Japanese Christian and democratic leader, has said that the resistance of South Koreans against North Korean aggression would have been stronger if land reform had been instituted to a greater extent than it was in the republic of South Korea.
Because of our failures in similar respects in the past, Soviet communism has become an immediate menace to the world. What I am trying to say is that an essential part of democratic world strategy should be the placing of greater emphasis on economic and humanitarian policies. We cannot van the struggle against totalitarian communism by military means alone. Indeed ultimate victory will lie with those who can do most to end poverty, misery and want wherever they may be found. Recent publications dealing with the Colombo plan have emphasized the dark picture of conditions in southeast Asia. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) this afternoon placed before the house some of the conditions that exist in that great subcontinent of India. In southeast Asia one-quarter of the world's population lives. Eighty per cent of the nearly 600 million people are directly dependent on the land.
The basic problem is food. We are told that in an area six times the acreage tilled in the United States, India, for example, uses only one-sixtieth of the amount of fertilizer used in the area under cultivation in the United States. Yet the land is old and has been cultivated for centuries. Its production is pitifully low. The instruments used are primitive. Again we are told, for example, that the United States has nearly 2J million tractors, while in India there are only 10,000. If I may quote from the Colombo report:
There is the application of modern tools and techniques which enables the farm worker in the United States to produce so much more per acre than the peasant in Asia. Power and machines are the key to plenty on the land-factories to make

External Affairs
lertilizer and instruments; machines to till the soil; drains to provide water for irrigation and to control the floods (and, incidentally, to provide electric power for the development of industry).
It is because in these countries, whose borders are not far removed from the borders of Soviet Russia, many of their people have seen technical assistance, machines, fertilizer and irrigation applied to some of the land in the Soviet union, that communism offers an enticement. Yet, with our technical knowledge, our industrial potential, we could assist the governments of southeast Asia to transform the economies of their countries in a comparatively short space of time and with a guarantee of ever-widening political as well as economic freedom. These are some of the considerations that we need to emphasize more clearly in our external relations and our defence of democracy.
I would like to see Canada give a very definite lead at the pending meetings of the economic and social council, and at the general assembly, for the immediate enlargement of technical assistance to the underdeveloped countries of the world. I am certain that public support would be forthcoming. This is a field at least where we should not wait for decisions in Washington. Indeed I believe that if we gave a lead now, public opinion in the United States would be encouraged to demand congressional support for the immediate advancement of technical and economic assistance to the underdeveloped and undernourished people of the world.
It would encourage the commonwealth nations, too, who are associated with Canada in the Colombo proposals, and indicate clearly that Canada believes communism cannot be defeated or contained by military means alone. Indeed in my opinion we should be placing emphasis where it really belongs, and Canada might in this respect at least give a lead both to our great and friendly neighbour and to the world generally.
So if I may refer again to conditions which make this a pressing problem: studies made by the United Nations have shown that the average food consumption in India, for example, works out at only sixteen hundred calories a day-or about half the amount which we consider to be necessary to enable a North American to do a day's work in comfort.
This situation has been aggravated by crop failure and by famine. It has been a disappointment to us that the government has failed to take any effective step to provide grain to relieve the famine conditions in India. The offer of low grade wheat, which was accompanied by a proviso that it should be sold and the financial return used for
technical improvements and so on, apparently could not be accepted by India. It seems to us that if we lacked sufficient milling quality wheat to meet India's needs, and provide quantities for export, we might have spared some of our own good wheat and accepted a Canadian loaf made from flour with more shorts and bran, a loaf of darker colour but one probably with a higher nutritional value for the Canadian people.
If it is true that Russia as well as China has offered substantial quantities of wheat and rice to India, it means that both Russia and China have made gestures which may have very favourable results for them in the days to come. The daily Indiagram, as it is called, issued by the Indian High Commissioner in Ottawa last Friday, May 4, recorded the fact that the British government had used its good offices to obtain ships for the transportation of grain and rice which India has purchased in China. Thus China seized an opportunity which both Canada and the United States failed to grasp at once, but which obviously the United Kingdom saw and did her best to take, so far as she could do so, in the field of transportation.
However the failure of both the United States and Canada to give immediate aid when it was requested makes it more difficult for us to retain the friendship and support we require from this important Asiatic country. And what is true of India is equally true of southeast Asia 'generally where, at best, food supplies are normally, almost permanently, inadequate. We must not overlook the fact that while production of basic food such as rice in southeast Asia is rising, and has risen-and indeed reached pre-war levels -the population has increased by 10 per cent since the war. So that the pressure is intensified to that extent.
The significant fact of which we must take heed is that the demand for national independence has been accompanied by a determination to improve low living standards in these areas. This desire must be met if governments like that of Nehru, which share our western ideals and belief in democracy, are to be maintained. It is a question of survival for these regimes to provide the masses of their countries with food and improved conditions. If they fail, they may give way to revolutionary movements promoted and controlled by the Soviet union.
This in my opinion is the lesson Canada should learn, and the lesson the world should learn from recent events in China. There, of course, a corrupt regime was in power and therefore the task of the communist forces was much more easily and readily accomplished. Nevertheless a basic factor leading

to their success was the deplorably low living standards of millions of Chinese peasants and workers. Poverty, low production, inflation, and corruption led there to the institution of a communist dictatorship.
There are now enlightened regimes in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and other places in southeast Asia. Perhaps the survival of human freedom in these areas-yes, indeed, across the world-depends upon our ability now to assist immediately in the raising of the standards of production and of living among the teeming millions of southeast Asia and other parts of the world where similar conditions are to be found.
And so it is that we of the C.C.F. wish in this discussion of our external affairs to emphasize that the only real cure for misery and want over wide areas of the world is the provision of more food and the means of producing it; and to emphasize also that this is the only way in which ultimately-ultimately, I say-Soviet imperialism can be defeated.
Of course, all this we must do under very difficult circumstances. We must do it at the same time as we are building our defences against totalitarian aggression in the military sense. The task is, of course, enormous; but we must face it or we shall ultimately lose the ideological struggle.
Primarily of course the problem is one which only we in North America can undertake. The strains on the only other country from which great aid could come, namely the United Kingdom, have become almost unbearable. She has already made a tremendous contribution to improved conditions in Africa, Egypt, India, Pakistan and elsewhere, in large part by the release of what are known as the sterling balances. Her lack of raw materials and her heavy rearmament commitments limit her ability to continue the flow of machines and other aid she has been sending to southeast Asia.
Indeed, as I have already said, the competitive grab for vital raw materials, and world inflation induced by competitive bidding, have reduced her ability to render the assistance she might otherwise have given. North America, through the Marshall and mutual-aid plans, has been largely responsible for having rehabilitated and given hope to the war-torn countries of Europe. We know that the Colombo plan, too, cannot be fully effective without a substantial contribution from both the United States and Canada. But, if we have to, we ourselves must go ahead and do what we can as a commonwealth. As I said, Canada
External Affairs
should take the lead if necessary, both as a member of the commonwealth and as a member of the United Nations.
So far it would seem that we have been inclined to place reliance upon the building up of our military forces, and this brings me to discuss perhaps more specifically Canada's own part in the solution of this great problem. I am not minimizing anything we have done in the past-because we have done a great deal in many respects-when I say that as a nation we have not done much more for southeast Asia than taken part in the United Nations and Colombo conferences, and made plans for some technical assistance to backward countries.
For United Nations' plans parliament has appropriated less than $1 million, and we are now making an appropriation of $25 million as a contribution to the Colombo plan. These appropriations have always been accompanied by statements recognizing the tremendous importance of south and southeast Asia to the democratic world, but at the same time emphasizing the limited nature of Canada's contribution because of our commitments under the north Atlantic defence proposals. Such statements were made several times before the Korean war, but we have been able since that time to find many more millions of dollars to expand our military and related expenditures.
This would seem to indicate that the government lacked both the vision and the courage a year ago to face the needs of depressed peoples as well as the will to combat communist propaganda among a quarter of the world's population, when we probably had a better opportunity so to do. Even a billion dollars spent in technical assistance and in the provision of food over the three ensuing years would have been only one-fifth of the money we appropriated for military expenditures and defence.
What I am saying is that our contribution to economic aid, to technical assistance and the Colombo plan should have borne some proportionate relationship in the past, and indeed now, to the amount we are now prepared to spend for the military defence of the democratic world. And in spite of our heavy commitments to the Atlantic alliance we believe we should be doing more in economic aid to depressed peoples than the government proposes at this time.
All this may seem idealistic to some people; but in my opinion it is the most practical method of preventing the onward march of Soviet imperialism-and that, after all, must be a main preoccupation of liberty-loving nations. The sooner we can assist

External Affairs
underdeveloped areas to provide more adequately for their populations, the sooner shall we be relieved of the necessity of economic aid, and be relieved, too, of enormous expenditures for defence against potential aggressors.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the
hon. member know what in fact we have done under the Colombo plan? I do not know.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact the Colombo plan is still in a rather nebulous condition. Except for expressing a willingness to a limited participation under certain circumstances, as far as I know we have done no more up to the present time. Of course we sent a delegation to discuss the Colombo proposals.
As I have said already, we can play our part in the struggle against the substitution of a new and sinister communist imperialism for the old capitalist imperialism which is withering away if we follow economic policies in the aid of underdeveloped and depressed areas. In the past number of years we, of the C.C.F., have advocated social and economic policies which in early discussions across the country were called impractical and idealistic and even unnecessary. Today a large part of them constitute a major portion of our social security and welfare legislation, both nationally and provincially. As an example, earlier this very afternoon the house approved a motion which brings very near, we hope, an old age pension reform we have long proposed and which a few short years ago was criticized as both impractical and undesirable.
I believe that what I have said expresses the viewpoint of many thousands of serious-minded and thoughtful Canadians. Indeed such a policy conforms to the aims outlined in article 55 of the United Nations charter, which pledges Canada to respect the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and pledges us to assist in promoting, and I quote from the charter:
A.	Higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development;
B.	Solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational co-operation; and
C.	Universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
We not only pledged ourselves in article 56 to take joint action in co-operation with the organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in article 55; we pledged ourselves also to take separate action when it was possible to do so. Our external policy

must ever keep in mind all the obligations we undertook in connection with the United Nations charter.
In spite of all the criticisms of the United Nations and the fact that it has failed to achieve all that was hoped for, it is still true that the United Nations is the one and only instrument available for the creation of a new and better world order. The very existence of the United Nations- assembly and the security council at least makes military aggression more difficult than it otherwise would be. Possible causes of war are brought under the scrutiny of world opinion and the danger of world war is reduced to that extent. Nor must we overlook the fact that in spite of the criticisms I have made of our inadequate aid to southeast Asia, the economic achievements of the United Nations through UNRRA, the Marshall plan, mutual aid, the international refugee organization, the children's fund and so on have been most encouraging, though we hear much less about them.
It is because democratic socialists have always recognized that the building of a just peace and a better world are dependent upon the effectiveness of international economic action that I have placed great emphasis on this phase of our international relationships today. Another member of our party speaking after me will say something about the other side of our defence problem. My time is not unlimited.
However, I would say again that we realize the necessity of maintaining the unity of the democratic world and defending it in every way against totalitarian threats of every sort. We recognize that while we blame, and properly blame, Russian communist aggression for the division that exists in the world, we are not unmindful that we on our side have made serious mistakes.
Much of the present world-wide unrest arises from agreements that were made during the war years by leaders of the western democracies in their attempt to maintain unity with the Soviet union. Today millions of people in the Baltic states-Bessarabia, Poland, parts of Finland-and indeed elsewhere-have every reason to remember the agreements reached at Teheran and particularly at Yalta. Nor must we forget that in days gone by our democratic countries indulged in the exploitation of many subject peoples. Even today we hear requests, particularly from some United States sources, for support for Chiang Kai-shek, for the retention of Formosa by the United States and for the extension of the war to China.

Along that path lies, we believe, another and more terrible world war. We think that now the United Nations forces are strong in Korea a new attempt should be made to secure a cease-fire and a negotiated settlement of the Korean war and related problems with the new government of China. After all, as Churchill said, it does control the mainland of China and is in fact the government for several hundred million people in that country. If we could achieve a satisfactory settlement, then much of the effort we are spending now in war and preparations for further eventualities could be diverted to peaceful progress and world-wide improvement in social and economic conditions. As I have said already, along such a path lies the possibility of peace and freedom. Canada should continue, then, to make every effort and use all her influence with the United States and our United Nations allies to achieve these ends.
Our suggestions, then, if I may summarize them, for laying the basis of permanent peace may be summarized in this form:
1.	Let us urge immediate and strenuous efforts on the part of all free nations to use all the organs of the United Nations for the removal of the dire poverty, misery, want and exploitation which provide the fertile field for communist or fascist propaganda.
2.	Let us ensure Canada's participation and leadership to a greater extent in economic and technical aid to depressed peoples and underdeveloped areas.
3.	There should be a reconsideration- of Canada's commitments to the United Nations organization for technical aid and as a contribution thereto, because it may form part, the Colombo plan.
4.	We should make positive proposals for the elimination of competition among the democratic nations for raw materials and essential supplies. If I may make the suggestion, this might be done by establishing a common or co-operative pool of such materials to enable a proper distribution of supplies among nations who can make an effort in this great defensive program.
5.	We should continue to explore every possibility of a cease-fire in Korea and a negotiated settlement of the Korean and all problems related to the present difficulties with China.
6.	Meantime, we should maintain our effort to make our proper contribution to the defensive forces of the democratic world.
7.	I bring this once again to the attention of the government. I made the suggestion last year and I make it again today. We
External Affairs
should make an appraisal of our material, industrial and human resources so that our economic and military plans can be made and carried out to the best advantage to Canada and to the world.
These are some of the views that we wish to place before the government and the house concerning the policy of the government in relation to external affairs. As one of the nations able to give some economic aid, we urge that Canada should place emphasis upon that phase of the world problem at the present time and try to give some leadership so that we may begin a really comprehensive program to prevent the spread of communism, and to remove the possibilities of its growth among the underprivileged peoples of the world.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my first words must be a reference to the passing of our friend, Mr. Gerry Riddell. I am expressing the feelings of all my group when I say that we regret very much the untimely passing of this promising young diplomat, a young man who in his few years of life made, I think, a very enviable mark in the field of diplomacy and international affairs. We shall miss his report to the standing committee, a report that was always full of facts and good things to think about.
I hesitate to launch on a lengthy speech at this time because I approach international affairs today with some diffidence. The reason I do so is that the world situation is so confused that it is hard to get at the facts. The minister emphasized the necessity of getting down to the hard anvil of facts rather than dwelling upon the shifting sands of emotion. That is true. That is why I feel somewhat diffident at this time about discussing such vast and important matters of policy. The world just does not have the facts, or at least I have not been able to ascertain them as yet.
The very controversy that is going on in the country to the south of us today over a matter of policy is one of the best evidences that it is hard to get at the facts. I do not intend to take sides in that controversy, but one is certainly led to ask just where the truth lies. I am afraid that in his statement this afternoon the minister did not shed very much light on the facts so that we can get right at them. I should like to mention briefly, however, the matter of our relations with our neighbour and ally to the south, the United States of America. I know that

External Affairs
we all appreciate the many peaceful years we have had with the United States, the fact that for so many years our more than 3,000 miles of boundary have remained unguarded by military forces, and that we have been able to get along so well with the people of that country.
I was not unduly worried when I read the report of the minister's speech in which he appealed to the United States to pay just a little more attention to a member of the family that had grown up a little. I was a member of a big family, and one of the youngest. I recall with what frustration I faced this interesting fact, that no matter how many whiskers appeared on my chin nobody in the family would admit that I had begun to grow up. That is a frustrating situation in any family. I am quite satisfied that what the minister had in his mind was a gentle reminder to the older members of this Anglo-American family that Jack Canuck had begun to grow up and get some whiskers on his chin. That does not hurt at all, and I think at the same time it is a gentle reminder to our neighbours that as we begin to grow up our voice -changes a little bit and takes on a little more of the nature of an adult voice.
I can quite appreciate what the minister was trying to do and I commend him for it. I do not think it has hurt Canadian-American relations in any respect at all. In fact I am satisfied it is going to be of considerable help, particularly when the minister and others from the government have to sit down with representatives from the United States of America to discuss the very important problems that will have to be discussed between us in the years ahead. I have in mind such things as the sharing of international waters. That in itself is a most important thing. I do not intend to- deal with it now. It is a matter that is under consideration at the moment, and I am hoping, together with many others, that a sound and equitable solution can be found to the whole problem of the division of these waters.
Another important matter which we will have to discuss, and as to which we will have to use a grown-up voice, is this whole matter of Canadian resources. The minister very aptly said today that Canada now occupies a very important position with respect to north Atlantic defence. That is quite true. As a matter of fact I think if any person will take the trouble to look into the situation he will -come to the conclusion that today Canada is the bulwark of American security. All one has to do is to look at the resources that Canada has, and to calculate their vast importance in the light

of diminishing United States resources. It is almost a godsend, an act of Providence, that our resources have been held in reserve for such an important and dangerous time.
What I have in mind, Mr. Speaker, is that in time we will have to sit down with our friends in the United States and discuss just how far they are going to be able to draw upon Canadian resources. We will have to be very careful because we do not want our resources depleted in the wanton way that resources have been depleted in some other countries. We should be prepared -to exercise the most careful vigilance to see to it that we conserve and develop Canadian resources largely in -the interests of the Canadian -people, and keep in mind particularly the needs and the rights of generations of Canadians yet unborn. Unless we do -that we are not going to be fair to ourselves nor to our -children and their children. It seems to me that, when we discuss with our friends across the line the contribution we shall make from Canada, those important things must be kept in mind.
In lending ourselves-and when I speak of ourselves I mean Canada-to the common effort to defeat aggression and to contribute to the germination and growth of that seed which they tell us is within communism and which if germinated and grown will destroy communism, let us use every effort to conserve our resources, and let. us take every intelligent means of preventing their waste and deterioration. I am sure the United States realizes the growing industrial might of Canada, her neighbour. I am sure she must realize that she will need some of the things we will be able to contribute to the common effort in the future, and those certainly should be used wisely to get a fair deal from the older and bigger member of the family.
Now I should like to say a few words about policy in Korea. I am afraid the minister did not shed much light on the tragically confused situation in that unfortunate country. I was hopeful that he would expand on the policy there, and perhaps help us understand a little more clearly where we are going. The minister did say we must uphold the purpose and will of the United Nations in Korea, but he did not tell us what that purpose and will really were. He indicated that the task assigned to the United Nations forces in Korea was to defeat armed aggression there, but what so many people in this country are asking today is this. How can the armies of the United Nations in Korea possibly perform the task and achieve the objective that has been set for them without some clear-cut plan and policy which will make that possible? There

is no such plan or policy in existence now so far as we know. The ousted commander of the United Nations forces, General Mac-Arthur, complained for months because of the failure to provide him with such a policy.
Just look at the impossible situation in which the United Nations has placed its commander and its gallant fighters. They can very well be compared with a champion who has been placed in the boxing ring with a challenger. The referee, in this case the United Nations, draws a line across the ring. Then he instructs the champion that he must whip the challenger before he can get out of the ring, but that he must not hit his opponent with everything he has, and he must not cross that line no matter how many thugs come to the support of the challenger in the other half of the ring. Moreover, no matter how often the challenger leaves the ring for refreshments, or rest, or to get more horseshoes in his boxing gloves, the champion must not leave his half of the ring for any reason whatever. He must take what is passed up to him by his seconds and do the best he can with that alone. "Stay right there until you win the fight." Those are the instructions he gets. There you have the situation. What kind of policy is that? How in the world can you expect your champion to get anywhere under such conditions? With his knowledge of organized sport and human nature I think the minister must admit that a champion needs a better plan and policy than that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may ask a question, would the hon. gentleman prefer to fight one challenger in half the ring, or two challengers in the whole ring?


Solon Earl Low: That is not the question. The
question is whether you are going to fight one in your half of the ring .plus a million coming in from the other half. The champion certainly needs a better plan than I have outlined. I believe a good many Canadians are beginning to object to Canadian boys having to fight against such odds as I have outlined. A good many Canadians are asking what hope these boys have when they go into the Korean battlefield today. It seems to me that such a fuzzy policy will have to be changed. My own forecast is that we will not win the struggle against aggression in Korea until the United Nations adopts a clear-cut, sharply focused policy which will give our armies at least a Chinaman's chance of winning a victory.
There is much confusion abroad, and I do not want to add to it, but I should like to ask this question. What about Korea herself? That has been in my mind for some time. I have wondered what effect
External Affairs
the terrible devastation of that country is going to have upon the prestige of the United Nations and the democratic countries of the world, the countries that are supposed to be guided by the interests of human beings. What are those countries going to say in the years to come? Almost a year ago South Korea appealed to the United Nations for help against North Korean aggression. The United Nations stepped in. The armies have rolled back and forth until the country is a shambles, its people homeless, hungry, disease-ridden, suffering and hopeless, a people on the move. The question we have to face is this. In the years .ahead how many small nations, the victims of aggression, will feel like appealing to the United Nations for support if they think about Korea and what has happened there since the South Koreans appealed for assistance. There has to be some answer to that question, and a more definite policy must be laid down to prevent that sort of devastation in any small country that may suffer aggression in future.
I have not seen any sign of such a policy yet. China stepped in. It was hard to follow everything the minister said, and I am trying to keep as closely as possible to what he did say in his address this afternoon, but I think he stated that China probably would not have intervened in the Korean affair if the United Nations forces had not threatened the Manchurian border. Is that correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I did not say that. I
said there were those at that time who were worried lest the rush to the Manchurian border might result in Chinese intervention and there were others who thought that would not happen, or words to that effect.


Solon Earl Low: Well, there are those who claim that China would not have intervened had the Manchurian border not been threatened by United Nations forces last fall. I take issue with that statement. I do not think there is any evidence in the world to prove that it is so. The weight of evidence, it seems to me, is on the other side, because for months and months the Chinese must have been accumulating vast reserves of supplies and men in a rather isolated part of their country. They were able to launch a quick and powerful offensive when they did start. I cannot believe for one moment that they waited until the Manchurian border was threatened to accumulate those forces to launch aggression themselves. After the 38th parallel was crossed1 there was a fast movement towards the north border; we have to keep that in mind. I cannot possibly

External Affairs
believe that was not a matter of long consideration by the Chinese, perhaps at the instigation of Moscow who must have been needling the Chinese along for a good many months trying to get them to do the dirty work that Moscow was not prepared to try to do iherself. So, I cannot go along with those who make the claim I have just mentioned.
I see it is getting along towards six o'clock, and I do not want to prolong what I have to say. Let me just conclude with this, that I certainly find myself in agreement with the minister when he says that communism, as a debasing doctrine, must be fought on other than military bases. I agree with that. I do not think there is any questioning of the fact that the battle of ideas which envelops the world today cannot be settled by armed conflict. But, Mr. Speaker, what I think we will have to do is to set up a new concept of democracy, a different one from what we have had in the past. If we are going to win the battle of ideas, the free world will have to begin now-and it is late to start-revitalizing and rehabilitating democracy. They are going to have to go not less than the whole distance of translating the entire Christian concept into a policy of government, and see that that is applied in the interests solely of human beings. When that is done, then I think we will be ready to start the war of ideas.
There are those people who scoff at any appeal that some of us make for the need of divine guidance. I know that I have been called "corny" time and time again by the fellows in the press gallery for suggesting any such preposterous thing. I am now going to suggest again that we rehabilitate our democracy and revitalize it, and then having given it that new shot in the arm we are going to have to remove the confusion that envelops us by constantly appealing for divine guidance. Men just cannot see their way through the fog. We are lost in the fog. We have got to be prepared to appeal unitedly for divine guidance; and then, when we do get the answer, we must have the courage to go forward under that guidance and achieve our objective, which is of course world peace.
Let me end on this note, Mr. Speaker. Let us not forget that the greatest force for human well-being and peace in this world today is the commonwealth of nations. I do not hesitate to call it the British commonwealth, as I like to think of it in that way. It seems to me that we ought to be resisting with a whole lot more strenuous exertion the forces that are attempting to destroy that commonwealth. There are those forces, and

they have been working for years. Sometimes, unconsciously perhaps, we have lent our aid and assistance to those forces that have been trying to tear down and destroy this great force for peace and well-being in this world. If that commonwealth is rejuvenated, rebuilt and revitalized along the democratic lines which I have suggested, I cannot help but feel that what the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) appealed for, aid and assistance to the needy people of other nations, especially southeastern Asia, could well be met. This assistance would bring them closer to a feeling of kinship with the people of the western nations. But you cannot do it unless you develop and apply policies that are different from those we are following today; we are following now policies that are diametrically opposed to the welfare of human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I may have something more to say when the estimates are brought back into the house after the committee has discussed them. I am looking forward to the meetings of the external affairs committee where we usually consider the estimates. I am hoping that we will be able to bring before us the various key people of the department to give us more information concerning the things that have been done with the moneys appropriated. I hope we shall have a full report of Canada's participation in the United Nations, and I feel certain we shall get that. I believe, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall reserve any further remarks I may have until such time as the estimates come back into the house.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in a debate on external affairs one is naturally conscious of not having all the information that the government possesses. I have no fault to find with this, because I recognize that much of this information is of a highly confidential nature and cannot possibly be made public. We have, however, enough information to speak generally on the foreign policy of Canada. I think that policy can be summed up in a very few words: one, the maintenance of peace throughout the world; two, peace through collective security by means of the United Nations; three, peace through strength. We are all concerned with maintaining peace. It is the overriding question in the minds of all decent people throughout the world. The

great question is how to bring this about. It is on this question that many minds differ.
In basing our policy on peace through collective security through the United Nations we do well to examine this organization. To do this it is necessary to go back to modern history, to examine how this organization was first founded and how it works.
After the first world war, or during the latter part of that war, the idea was born in the minds of men to form a union of nations to preserve peace. It was called the league of nations and met regularly at Geneva, Switzerland. It was chiefly sponsored by the late president of the United States, President Wilson, who became the leader of the movement. Unfortunately, when the late president tried to persuade the people of the United States to support the league, the idea was bitterly fought by the then leader of the Republican party, the late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. How well he succeeded lies in the fact that the United States adopted a policy of isolation and did not enter the league.
Great Britain and the other members of the commonwealth did join, and supported the league wholeheartedly. Great Britain based her whole foreign policy on the league, indeed to such an extent that she disarmed to the point of national weakness. At this time the British commonwealth of nations was the greatest power on earth. It had the strongest navy, army and air force and there was no power to challenge it. By scrapping all this the commonwealth demonstrated its faith in peace and in the league to enforce it.
Whatever our opinion may now be of this action, history will record it as the greatest gesture for peace taken by any nation up to that time. Great efforts were made to strengthen the league; but unfortunately Japan, realizing she must expand to keep her place in the sun, marched into Manchuria to supply herself with what she needed to feed her growing industry and take care of her rapidly increasing population. This was the first great test of the league's ability to keep and maintain peace. It failed, and this episode of Japan's was soon followed by Italy's conquest of Ethiopia. Germany smarting from her defeat in world war I and suffering from inflation and the lack of employment turned to Hitler and his national socialist party as a way out. Under the driving force of Hitler, rearmament began to take place by leaps and bounds. The German army marched to the Rhine in defiance of the treaty of Versailles. Again nothing was done to stop this challenge to peace. The march to the Rhine was soon followed by the march into Austria, the Sudetenland and
External Affairs
Poland. The league by this time having become impotent to preserve the peace, the second world war began.
It is fair to say that although the league failed to keep the peace it had many successes in minor matters; but as an instrument of peace it failed. The second world war was fought with such brutality and savagery as the world had never before experienced; whole peoples were almost destroyed or uprooted, the loss of life and property was colossal. When the war ended, people, weary and sick of war, once again began to cast about for a way to end war and usher in an era of peace. For the second time we saw the attempt to bring this about when the principal nations of the world met at San Francisco to find ways and means to bring about peace to a stricken world and form an organization to this end. Thus began the United Nations. This time the United States played a prominent part in the formation of this organization and it can be said she was the principal sponsor and backer. The peoples of the world breathed a sigh of relief, and hope for a peaceful world once more occupied the minds of men. How effective has the United Nations been in preserving peace, and what are its future prospects in this regard, is the burning question of the day. We can only judge by events which have thus far taken place. Out of the welter of the many voices raised for the future welfare of mankind, two predominant ideas have emerged:	First, the
communist idea that man exists for the welfare of the state; and, second, the democratic idea that the state exists for the welfare of man. Those are the basic ideas of life which occupy the minds of whole peoples today and for which the battle for the control of the human mind is now raging.
Whatever our idea may be of the Soviet tactics in the United Nations, there can be no doubt that if they wished they could have peace on terms very favourable to them; instead they have been doing everything possible to create trouble, hoping to discredit the democratic idea of life and sow dissension amongst those nations who believe in this free way of lfe. This is only understandable when we realize that the whole background of Soviet foreign policy is based on the belief that democracy and communism cannot live side by side and one or the other must collapse. Collapse means defeat with all the consequences that that entails. As Canada's foreign policy is partly based on collective security through the United Nations, it is necessary that we examine this organization and what its prospects are for enforcing

External Affairs
peace. There has never been an international force to punish an aggressor and to provide the means by which resolutions adopted by the United Nations may be enforced.
The history of the United Nations during its last plenary session does not encourage the idea that this association of nations can or will enforce peace. Rather, it has been one of dissension, name-calling and all that goes to make for disunity. Russia's coming back to the league was for no other purpose than to spread disunity among free democratic peoples of the world. How well she succeeded in this is all too evident. When the Korean situation broke, all the world with the exception of Russia and her satellites united in the effort to put down aggression, and a front in Korea was quickly attained. Now we have the democratic bloc in the United Nations that supported putting down of aggression in Korea haggling over how this struggle should be carried on, and instituting a peace measure when the military situation was going against us in Korea.
The greatest example of this has been the part played by India and its very able representative at the United Nations in the person of Sir Benegal Rau. This movement led by India, supported by other Asian nations, was well timed, and although I give them credit for the highest motives, namely the cause of peace, it was instituted at a time of weakness, and a just and lasting peace through weakness has never yet succeeded. It is difficult for the western mind to understand the motives of this peace movement. I endeavoured last year in speaking about this to try to portray how the oriental mind works. I do not wish to cover the same ground again, but I think it is necessary to state some facts as briefly as possible bearing on this subject.
Mr. Nehru in a broadcast on January 12 stated as follows:
Asia is essentially peaceful, but it is also proud and sensitive and very conscious of its newly-won freedom. It has mighty problems of its own and wishes to live at peace with the rest of the world, but it is no longer prepared' to tolerate any domination-or any behaviour after the old pattern of colonialism. Nor should we forget the millions of people who are still under colonial status in Africa and elsewhere.
The National and English Review of February 1951 has the following comment:
Mr. Nehru is admittedly Prime Minister of India; but he is not prime minister of Asia or Africa, and he has no right whatever to pontificate on those subjects. If he means to imply that the Americans, Australians, British and others, who are dying in Korea at the hands of "peaceful" Asiatics, are behaving "after the old pattern of colonialism" -whatever that may mean-he needs to be reminded that his own country is spending about half its
tMr. Stick.]
budget on military preparations against its neighbour, and that he is therefore in no position to lecture others on the inherent peacefulness of Asia.
The three nations of the Indian subcontinent are fully fledged members of the commonwealth and no good can come of the pandering to them or treating them like hypersensitive neurotics. They are obviously quite willing to tell us what they think of us, and we should not hesitate to return the compliment.
India and1 Pakistan, more especially, are not only the leading Asiatic nations of the commonwealth; they are also, as regards population, the two largest nations of the commonwealth. Yet their whole strength is at present turned inward and, while they are preaching peace to the rest of the world, they are preparing for war with each other over Kashmir.
We do not suggest that either side is intent on war; their preparations may be purely defensive. We understand the religious principle which Pakistan is striving for, and the secular principle for which India stands. We appreciate, too, the economic importance of Kashmir, and the wider problem of minorities, with its inflammatory effect upon public opinion in both countries. Nevertheless we deplore their failure to reach an agreement, or at least some form of modus vivendi, which would enable them to co-operate actively with their partners in the commonwealth and other friendly powers in resisting the lawless use of force and creating a fairer balance of power in the world.
This quotation which I have just read is the west's analysis of Mr. Nehru and his motives, and although it is true in fact, it yet does not give us the background for Mr. Nehru's actions, or the motives that lie behind those actions. In this regard I further quote a page from a book called "A Prince of the Captivity" written by John Buchan, the late Lord Tweedsmuir, and former Governor General of Canada. I know of no other words so well written and put in such -concise form to explain the oriental mind and its attitude to life in general.
In this book the author is describing an interview by a young man being trained for the intelligence service and who is sent to interview a character known as Mr. Scrope who is supposed to be a sage of the East. The import of those words to my mind is the secret of what is influencing the thinking of Mr. Nehru and the peoples of India at this time.
Mr. Scrope seemed to have a genius for the discursive, but his reminiscences were directed1 to one point especially, the everlasting differences of east and west. His chief instance was the virtue of courage. The east he said, which did not fear the hereafter, was apathetic toward the mere fact of death, but it had not the same fortitude about life.
It was capable of infinite sacrifice, but not of infinite effort, it was apt to fling in its hand too soon and relapse upon passivity. On the other hand the west when it had conquered the fear of death demanded a full price for any sacrifice. Rightly, said the old man, since man's first duty was toward life.	!
With all the good will in the world toward Mr. Nehru and the peoples of India and Pakistan, who are very lovable people, I

regret to state that their actions to -bring about peace thus far in Korea are not based on peace through strength. To me they are based on peace by appeasement or peace at any price. To follow the leader of the East in this regard would be a fatal step for the West to take. It would be interpreted throughout the Orient as a sign of our weakness, and the Orient has always followed those who are strong and can enforce their strength. Furthermore it is a denial of our policy of peace through strength; and we in the West, however much we desire peace, cannot bring ourselves to believe that a just and lasting peace -can be brought about by such means. The weakness of the United Nations lies in the fact that it has no official international force to maintain peace. It was the recognition of this fact that brought about the Atlantic treaty which we did so much to institute and which we are doing so much to maintain. For the first time in history we have today a United Nations force fighting to stop aggression. What happens in Korea could very well mean the dawn of a new era or the downfall of the United Nations. The issue is now joined for good or ill.
Ever since the world was created and man came to inhabit this earth two forces have been- working to which all peoples are subject. They are commonly called the force for good and the force for evil. Man has been given a free choice in this matter. The struggle which we are now engaged in is a struggle for men's minds, and we as individuals and as a nation must make our choice as to what course we will pursue. We as a people and as a nation with long centuries of Christian tradition behind us cannot accept the idea of a communistic state whereby man is reduced to the status of a slave to the state. We must at all cost adhere to the Christian belief whereby we should treat our neighbour as we would have him treat us.	If we are to resist the
evil influence of communistic doctrine this nation must be united as never before. Already -there are signs by the enemy in our midst to try and sow the seeds of dissension among us on religious and racial grounds. Whatever our honest differences may be in this regard it must never be allowed to divide ,us in this fight for peace in which we are engaged. This fight is nothing more or less than a fight for our very life, and it can only be fought successfully by closing our ranks and by a unity of purpose which should transcend all other considerations. We can win this fight only if we are united as never before.
External Affairs
There can be no real peace without freedom, neither can there be peace without honour. The freedom of Canada is involved in this struggle, it is a glorious heritage of our past; in this respect there can be no compromise. Our honour is involved also; there must be no question of where we stand on honour.
This is your country, it is my country, it is our country, it is Canada. Together then as Canadians let us go forward and win, faithful to the proud heritage which is ours, faithful to the principles of truth on which we take our stand, and above all our belief in the justice of our cause. I know of no better words than those of Kipling, who said: Teach us to look in all our ends,
On Thee tor judge, and not our friends;
That we, with Thee, may walk uncowed By fear or favour of the crowd.
Teach us the strength that cannot seek,
By deed or thought, to hurt the weak;
That, under Thee, we may possess Man's strength to comfort man's distress.
Teach us delight in simple things,
And mirth that has no bitter springs; Forgiveness free of evil done.
And love to all men 'neath the sun!


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention on entering this debate to stress the fact that Canada has now come of age internationally. No longer are we to be permitted to hide under the policies of no commitments of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King. We -are now a full partner, and whether we like it or not other nations expect us to act our age. External affairs are now our most pressing problem. The problem of inflation, our military production, our manpower problems, our burden of taxation and the expenditure of priceless lives of our best citizens, all are due to forces which originate outside Canada. What I say about events which are taking place externally has an immediate effect on our national life.
It has been my privilege to have lived for the past three and a half months in central Europe, a considerable part of the time being spent in Russian controlled territory, behind the iron curtain. I believe this has given me an opportunity to view the present situation objectively and, to a degree at least, from the European point of view as I -had not seen a Canadian newspaper or heard a Canadian political opinion from the second of January until my return recently.
The opinions I have are not likely to be popular. No conclusions are which must stress the danger of imminent war. We in Canada are fond, so fond, of talking about

External Affairs
what we want and shunning discussion of what we may get. What I propose to talk about is what we may get and the military consequences of our political wis'hfulness.
Up to the present the offensive from the military and political point of view has been taken by the Russians. The Korean war, the Viet Minh attacks in Indo-China, the bloodshed in the oil fields of Persia, and the rearming of eastern Germany are all part of the same offensive. From the debauching of the security council of the United Nations to the mockery of the meetings of the foreign ministers' deputies at the Palais Rose in Paris, the Soviets have been, and still are, the wreckers of unity. The western powers are still thinking defensively. We still believe we can deal through diplomatic channels with Stalin, just as we wishfully hoped to be able to do with Hitler. People who think this way furiously resent being called appeasers, yet their actions have the effect of appeasement, just as much as did Runciman's visit to Prague or Chamberlain's trip to Godesberg.
The first aim of Russia is to cause trouble, chiefly political trouble between the western powers. In this she has had a marvellous ally in the anti-American British press. In January when the first onslaught of the communist Chinese hordes all but drove the United Nations forces, including a United Kingdom and commonwealth brigade, out of Korea, the British press did nothing but cast doubts on the effective direction of the war. English papers were full of opinions about the folly of crossing the 38th parallel, despite the fact that most of them had said nothing when the forces under General Mac Arthur were approaching the Yalu river and the Manchurian boundary. When reverses took place, the British hatchet brigade in Fleet street was mobilized to a man.
Questions were raised about the fighting qualities of the United States troops. Even the Times, whose power to thunder has now degenerated, until it has merely the status of a pompous squeaker, with little worm words of petulance and pontifical editorials of corroding doubt joined the fray. If the United Kingdom press had no salacious sexual abnormality to report, they concentrated on some anti-social behaviour in the United States and treated American news generally either with derision' or scorn. So obnoxious did this become that I, as a Canadian who was educated in England and regarded her as a spiritual home, turned away in disgust. I happen to know that my feelings were shared by many Americans in London. I say this here in the House of Commons in the hope that some notice will

be taken of my protest. This campaign of derision and scorn carried on by the British press is in very truth playing Stalin's game.
In this connection this anti-American feeling which has been generated is referred to quite clearly in an editorial in the Daily Mail of April 26 where it is mentioned as being one of the most dangerous things we have to contend with in our fight for freedom.


Mr. Croll:: Has the hon. gentleman never read the Chicago Tribune?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Because there happens to be evil on one side is no reason to condone evil on the other. Two wrongs do not make a right.
On the continent it is apparent that there is a distinct rebirth of nationalism which I shall call neo-nazism. This has grown quite quickly in the past year and the causes for it are exactly the same as those which brought about the national socialism of Hitler. One of the reasons is that today, in both Austria and Germany, there is a degree of unemployment, varying in intensity in different sections, but everywhere serious enough to cause insecurity. This is intensified by the economic pressure on the labour market of many thousands of displaced persons from parts of Germany now ceded to Poland, and Volksdeutsch from Czechoslovakia and eastern Europe, as well as by refugees from communism who have escaped from behind the iron curtain. These latter people are stateless and are living on temporary permits as visitors more or less on sufferance. Their presence naturally undermines the wage structure. Under Hitler everyone had work and was paid in money that had real purchasing power. Today we must not ignore the fact that democratic principles are a poor substitute for security and a full stomach.
I would emphasize also the void left in the minds and souls of the Hitler generation by the defeat of nazism. These people had no other gods but Hitler and they are now suspended in a vacuum, finding little to cling to in democracy, which they do not understand. Fortunately, the older people are not affected and the youngsters of high school age are not contaminated. Having spent a day with a high school group, 1 found no trace of the old arrogance which would have certainly shown itself in 1938 or 1939.
The political significance of the surplus population problem was demonstrated recently in the provincial elections in Schleswig-Holstein. There a political party representing the voice of the displaced German national

has, I believe, actually elected the largest group in the legislature. The firm stand Chancellor Adenauer has taken against the Socialist Reich's partei, the neo-nazis led by men like General Heinz Remer, who frustrated the plot against Hitler, and Dr. Franz Richter, a fiery schoolteacher orator, is to be commended, but the coming elections may show Socialist Reich partei gains in the provinces of Rhineland-Pfalz and Lower Saxony.
The rest of the free world, but particularly Canada, has a responsibility to see to it that an effort be made to remove this surplus population and provide these people with productive work. I am inclined to disagree with statements that these people do not desire to emigrate, and from personal observation I would say that many thousands would come immediately if a real campaign was put on to get them. I will discuss immigration later, but just let me say in passing that we can be extremely proud of our immigration missions in Europe. They are doing a tremendous job under great pressure, and are in many cases seriously overworked.
The economic problems of central Europe are, apart from the hideous cost of an army of occupation, almost exactly the same as those which brought about the expansion of the Third Reich under Hitler. Austria, with a third of her population in the city of Vienna, cannot exist unless she becomes part of a Danubian block or unites again with Germany. With the Danube now a Russian river, the formation of a Danubian block seems impossible for many years. The economic urge for union with Germany will become inexorable, despite the statements of the present Austrian Chancellor, Dr. Figl, and the no doubt genuine feelings of other Austrian leaders. Austria is not and cannot be made into another Switzerland. Geography alone prevents it.
Coming now to Russian occupation of both Austria and Germany, it is my opinion that the Soviet power intends to continue this forever. The inescapable conclusion which must be reached is that the Soviet armies will remain in central and western Europe until they are driven out by superior force. The conference table is, as is being made abundantly clear at the Palais Rose in Paris, a symbol of futility, and the western diplomats who go to conferences with the Russians should be armed with automatic record players so at least they would be able to listen to music rather than the harsh, explosive invective of the Russians. They should also be awarded the "Order of Job".
The rearmament by the Russians of east Germany is now so obvious that it can no longer be disguised. The creation of an east
External Affairs
zone "luft politzei", which in other words means an east German air force, has been observed by so many competent observers that its existence, size and composition have become generally known. Up to now it appears that the east German army is organized up to battalion formations. To train brigades or divisions, the German troops now under arms will have to be moved into Russian training areas in Germany. If this occurs this spring, as seems likely, it is an unmistakable sign that action, possibly similar in form to the outbreak in Korea, has been transferred from the realm of the possible to that of the probable. Here, Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that Russia has added in the last week to her thirty divisions already in east Germany.
The place to stop the Soviets is where they are now, not on the Rhine, and certainly not at the English channel. It is defensive thinking to talk about stopping the Russians on the Rhine; it is defeatist thinking to talk about stopping them at the channel. If we are to have allies in Europe, we must prevent their countries from being overrun, their industries either destroyed or working for the enemy, and their manpower aiding him, even though unwillingly. No European country wants to be liberated. They may be wrong in this, but nevertheless this is how they feel and this sentiment is very strong both in France and Italy. Never again must the free world allow the continent of Europe to be overrun. If we do, I say with all the emphasis at my command that our cause is lost.
Conditions behind the iron curtain in Germany and Austria have been reported on so often in the press that they have become generally known. Nevertheless, to actually see the devastation and wreckage caused by the Russians comes as a shock. The Russian has a character similar to the wolverine; for what he cannot use he spoils. I have seen such towns as Wiener-Neustad't where not only has the machinery been removed from the factories but the very buildings have been levelled until not a wall is left standing.
The difference in the attitude of the people in the western and Russian zones, both in Austria and in Germany, is immediately apparent. In the cities there is an ominous feeling of tenseness. In the country there is a sense of desolation. As one approaches the Russian zone, two things become apparent. The first is the tremendous courage of the people, and the second is the respect for the judgment of Winston Churchill and the tragedy of the naive idealism of President Roosevelt.
The Russian occupying forces are treated by their own authorities with great suspicion.

External Affairs
Not only are they never allowed out of barracks on duty singly, but when not on duty they are constantly and continuously confined to barracks. The fear that they will become contaminated by the free world, particularly in Vienna, is very great. Even at the opera quite senior Russian officers never appear except in groups of three or more, and I never saw any other ranks at the theatre. The Russian on duty is invariably armed with an automatic weapon slung over his back. Checks and searches are frequently made in public places, on street cars, and in restaurants in the Russian zone, and any irregularity in one's papers or identification inevitably means a trip to the commandatur and at least questioning for several hours.
The number of people in Vienna who just simply disappear is enormous. This constant threat naturally keeps the people in the Russian zone in a perpetual state of fear. What the Russians are doing in the territory under their control gives us an idea of their intentions. Industries whose products cannot be used by the Soviet are either destroyed or their operation severely hampered. On the other hand, factories, mines, oil wells or any other productive enterprise whose products are of use to the Soviets are working at full speed, and all the goods produced are sent into Russia or used to aid the Soviet economy elsewhere. No payment of course is made for any natural product used.
Soviet propaganda is to be seen everywhere. Outside the Russian headquarters large glass-covered notice boards describe the joys of life in the Soviet union, and on all the public billboards Soviet propaganda of the most violent type, generally directed against the Americans, is displayed. To counter this the free world, with the assistance of the Marshall plan, has used some very effective measures, particularly at the recent trade fair in Vienna. In the east zone of Berlin, notices were displayed of the Rosenbergs, who were called martyrs for peace; and I was informed, although I did not see it, that there is a monument to Fuchs, also classified as a martyr for peace.
Nowhere in Europe was I so impressed with the courage and the fierce determination to resist as I was in Berlin, A visit to Berlin is a tonic, and one is reminded of the words of Schiller:
The dignity of mankind is entrusted to you, guard it; it is you who degrades it; it is you who elates it.
Not only have the west Berliners set about the job of rebuilding their city from the greatest pile of rubble in history, but they have fiercely fought for their freedom. At the university several of the professors have

been warned that their continued teaching of the evils of communism has marked them as enemies of the Soviet union, and therefore subject to instant liquidation if captured or kidnapped. Nevertheless they continue to preach freedom. The student body, instead of seeking sympathy and being filled with self-pity, is full of fight and working to rebuild Berlin culturally as well as physically. It would do a lot of good to a great many Canadian students who are today complaining of their life to spend a few months at this university. I would also like to see a number of our Canadian professors who are toying intellectually with the merits of communism and socialism to take a refresher course in courage and the dignity of man at the university of Berlin.
One would wish that the spirit of Berlin could be duplicated in all western Germany, but unfortunately this is not so and the old German trait of self-pity is again being practised. It must be said, unfortunately, that to a large degree the German today Is unreformed and unrepentant. Nevertheless, and despite this, the western powers are forced to come to a decision in Germany almost immediately. As I have said, the place to stop Russia is where she is now, and to do this we must have the help of the western German. Therefore we are directly faced with the problem of rearming the Germans. It is my belief that this step must be taken and it must be taken at once. We cannot expect to get much support from Germany unless in the war we are now fighting we treat her as a full partner and give her full national status. The Germans cannot be treated as mercenaries, and they cannot successfully be formed into small units in a European army under nonGerman command. They will resent this and the feeling of neutralism which exists today will become more powerful. The German, despite what we may think of him, is a human being and has the same love for his country that any other national has. He cannot be persuaded to fight for some nebulous concept of democracy, but he can be persuaded to fight for the defence of his own country. Therefore it is necessary to face this difficult problem squarely and realistically. The free world must either be prepared to enormously enlarge its armies in Europe or we must recognize Germany as a full partner in the fight for freedom; otherwise we run the danger of losing Europe and, if we do, the cause of freedom may be lost forever.
I would like to pay tribute to the excellence of the work being done by the ECA. I feel it would not be too much to say that

had we not had this farsighted program, Europe today would be largely under communist domination. The work done by Paul Hoffman and his associates may prove to have been the turning point in our fight for freedom.
It is easy to get an impression of despondency and defeatism in the cities of Italy and France. Particularly is this true of Paris. As an example of this, I cite an experience I had in the early part of last month when there was a transportation strike and neither the busses nor the metro was working. The French army put on a number of trucks which helped to get the people to and from work. In each truck I rode in there was a notice to the effect that this service was being given to Parisians by their army. It seemed to me to be working quite satisfactorily, under the circumstances. However, I heard this remark made by Parisians several times during the strike: "Oh, the army this time has its transport ready so they will be able to escape and not be caught as they were in the Maginot line in 1940". To hear remarks like this and to see the horrible defeatism of the French intellectual is certainly disconcerting, and one would think that French pride was a thing of the past.
I do not, however, believe this to be the case because there has been a tremendous resurgence in rural France. Agricultural production has increased to a point where France is reported to have food for export; the electrical system on the Rhone is probably the greatest in Europe; French industry is producing in terms of goods 30 per cent more than it was in pre-war years; the birth rate has increased to the highest since the turn of the century; rolling stock on the railways has been improved, and the harbours rebuilt; communism, even in the worst unions, has declined by as much as 30 per cent, and I feel sure that if-and unfortunately it is a big if-the new electoral reform bill becomes law the number of communist members in the next chamber of deputies will be more than cut in half. Nearly 30 per cent of the 1951 French budget is to be spent for defence and even the collection of taxes has improved, until today the tax revenue of France expressed as a percentage of the gross national product is higher than that in the United States. All this, however, will be lost to the free world if France is overrun again.
Coming to the United Kingdom, I feel that there are certain forces at work here which are, to say the least, unfortunate. I
External Affairs
speak of the efforts being made, consciously or unconsciously, to create trouble and cause friction between England and America. There is a growing feeling of what is called "bloody-mindedness" today in England, I certainly do not intend to discuss British politics, but I had the privilege of being in the House of Commons at Westminster when the question of the policy pursued by General MacArthur and his dismissal by President Truman was discussed, and the anti-American sentiment was very apparent.
There has been no time in history when Anglo-American solidarity was so important, and there has never been a time when North American unity has been so vital. Therefore anything which gives the communist party and the leftist press of Europe any opportunity to show dissension between England and the United States or Canada and the United States is most dangerous. In this regard I regret to state that the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in Toronto provided the enemies of freedom with an excellent opening. I do not say that the minister should not have spoken as he did, although I think his timing was bad. And I do not say that any cabinet minister or any member of this house should be prevented from criticizing any action of the United States government or any individual in that government, or any individual American, with the utmost freedom. I myself in the past have severely criticized the actions of the United States treasury and its domination over the international monetary fund, and I propose to do so again during this session.
The speech of the minister was regarded by the forces now busily at work in Europe sowing Anglo-American discord as a wonderful opportunity to say that Canada too resented Yankee imperialism. The headlines in the English papers certainly intensified this feeling. I shall quote a few of them:
Manchester Guardian: April 11:-"Take more notice of Canada, Mr. Pearson warns U.S. ..."
Daily Eocpress, April 11"Canadian External Affairs Minister L. B. Pearson plainly told the U.S. Canada is not willing to be her echo." "He declared that both countries would get along better if the U.S. realized that Canada was not willing to be merely an echo and took more notice of what Canada did and said." "Not always easy. But these relations would not always be easy and smooth. There would be difficulties and frictions." Daily Telegraph, April 11"Canadian minister warns U.S. dominion will not be echo. Plea to settle friction." "A warning to the United States that Canada was not willing to be echo." "Mr. Pearson described Canadian-American relations as one of the most difficult and delicate problems of foreign policy that has yet faced Canada."

External Affairs
"Most Canadians resent being called a reluctant friend." Glasgow Herald,:-"Delicate Canada-United States relations." The Scotsman:- "Canadian minister on relations with U.S. difficult and delicate problems."
Paris Presse L'Intransigeant:	"M. Pearson laisse
prevoir des frictions entre le Canada et les U.S.A."
These statements are not the statements of the minister, but they are the headlines showing the interpretation placed on his speech. Most of the papers are Conservative, but one can well imagine the field day the communist and leftist press had with this statement.
We are today in an acutely dangerous situation. No decisions which we can make are ideal; all involve compromise. I am convinced, however, that we must show the utmost courage and resolve.. We face a ruthless enemy who understands nothing but force. The only way to treat communism is by quickly giving it a bloody nose wherever it attacks. Any nation or any form of government which has to lock up its troops lest they become contaminated by freedom is not a strong nation nor a strong government, despite the tyranny it practises and the number of divisions it has at its command.
There are abundant signs of great restlessness in the satellite countries. These signs may not lead to open revolt but, Mr. Speaker, man was not made to be a slave. Any individual, any regime or any country which tried to enslave mankind has always been destroyed. It may take time, it will certainly cost lives; but, Mr. Speaker, the time it takes and the lives it will cost can be lessened only by the western powers standing together in the fight for the freedom and dignity of man.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, for the first time in several years, I attended a baseball game between the Ottawa Giants and the Montreal Royals at Lansdowne park. While observing the game, and the large, intent and at least temporarily happy crowd, I thought, what a typically Canadian scene! There one saw Canada's highest ranking diplomat and some of his officials responding to a good throw or an exciting double play with the same mercurial manner as the school boy of tender years and smudgy face. Mr. Speaker, that and similar scenes across this country are of daily occurrence, and are constant reminders of the deep-seated foundations of our developing democracy. All we ask in the conduct of international affairs is that the tolerance and fairmindedness and the sportsmanship of the playing field be exemplified in the observance of international rules. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is all that Canada asks.

For the first time in human history, rules for the conduct of international affairs have been drafted by mankind, and those rules are now found in the charter of the United Nations which the Canadian people wholeheartedly accept and support. We cannot at this time expect complete agreement and understanding between nations. Deep-seated national interests and rivalries, varying traditions and experiences will, without doubt, for some years engender misunderstandings and disagreements. In my opinion these disagreements will not threaten the peace of the world if the nations of the world obey the rules laid down by agreement and found in the United Nations charter.
However, as people given to observing the rules, Canadians cannot stand idly by and witness strikes called against them when the ball does not pass over the plate. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the centre of interest and main anxiety in Canada at this time is Korea. After ten months, the military and political situations are no nearer solution. The group of which I am a member has given serious consideration to these most important questions, and the proposals I wish to make in this connection represent the consensus of the C.C.F. group in this house.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) thi9 afternoon. Before proceeding I believe it is only fair to say that we all recognize the very heavy responsibility he carries during these very difficult and trying times. Mr. Speaker, we admit that the minister has represented Canada in a splendid way at the United Nations. I am quite sure it is safe to say that the great majority of the Canadian people recognize his ability, his sincerity and his capacity. Mr. Speaker, we agree with the statement made by the minister when he indicated that the government supported the policy of localizing the conflict in Korea as far as possible. On an assessment of all the circumstances and conditions, we believe that is a sane and sound policy at this time. We also agree with the statement that the government considered that the position with respect to Formosa should come within the scope of the United Nations. I believe that is the only practical and sound way to approach that question.
However, Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree with the minister's statement that, for the present, the role of diplomacy must come second to military operations. At that point we differ with the minister in his statement of policy this afternoon. We in this group believe the time is opportune for another attempt to settle the Korean question by negotiation. I shall quote an excerpt from

a broadcast speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs over the trans-Canada network on December 5, 1950, in which he said:
I know that the policy I suggest will be called "appeasement" by some. "Warmonger," "fascist," "appeaser," "red," "peace," "democracy," such words are now used so loosely and irresponsibly that their coinage has become debased. So let us not be frightened by words. The action which was taken at Munich in 1938 and which has made "appeasement" a byword, was open to two charges: That it was shortsighted because it was based on illusions about the nature of the government which was the aggressor at that time, and that it was shameful because it sacrificed the freedom of one country in the interests of the security of others. Neither of those accusations can be brought against the policy I have outlined. It is not appeasement. It is an attempt through diplomacy to reach a modus vivendi with the Asian communist world.
The United Nations commander in Korea himself has remitted to diplomacy the task of deciding what to do in Korea in this new situation created by Chinese intervention. It is the function of diplomacy to seek accommodation which can be the basis for stable relations between differing countries and systems. We have agreed in the past that some such accommodation with the Soviet union and its satellites is necessary. In the present circumstances, I believe it is our duty to make every effort to reach such a settlement.
After listening to the minister's remarks this afternoon in this connection, we believe there is a certain shift in emphasis since he made that speech last December 5. We believe that the conditions at the present time do present once more a favourable opportunity for negotiations. Negotiations have been stalled since the adoption by the United Nations of the United States resolution declaring China the aggressor. The C.C.F. believe that conditions have changed considerably since that time as the result of new factors that may favourably influence the political climate in which negotiations can be undertaken. In our opinion these two new and important factors are:	First, that
as the result of recent military events the United Nations would now be negotiating from a position of strength entirely different from the position that prevailed when the last negotiations were attempted. I want to quote in this connection from the statement by Mr. Chou En-lai, minister for foreign affairs of the Peiping government, December 14, 1950. This is what he said on that occasion:
This being the case, why does the United States delegate, Mr. Austin, now favour an immediate cease-fire in Korea, and why does President Truman also express willingness to conduct negotiations to settle the hostilities in Korea? It is not difficult to understand that, when the United States invading troops were landing at Inchon, crossing the 38th parallel or pressing toward the Yalu river, they did not favour an immediate cease-fire and were not willing to conduct negotiations. It is only
External Affairs
when the United States invading troops have sustained defeat, that they favour an immediate ceasefire and the conducting of negotiations after the cease-fire. Very obviously, they opposed peace yesterday, so that the United States might continue to extend her aggression; and they favour a ceasefire today, so that the United States may gain a breathing space and prepare to attack again, or at least hold their present aggressive position in preparation for further advance.
We claim the situation has entirely changed today; that the United Nations can negotiate from a position of strength, and that the locale of fighting and the situation of the troops involved are more favourable for negotiations at the present time than they were last December. In our opinion this improved situation offers possibilities for a change of attitude on the part of the Peiping government. Further, we believe the second favourable factor is the removal of General MacArthur by President Truman. Without entering into this controversy, we in the C.C.F. are of the opinion that his removal means the removal of a dominant and provocative personality who is without doubt viewed by the Chinese people with intense bitterness and resentment. Governments, like individuals, are affected and influenced by personalities. History is replete with illustrations of how the removal of a statesman, an ambassador, or a general, has improved the relationship between nations, of how the removal of one personality from the stage of public affairs had made the writing of a treaty or the conclusion of negotiations a fairly simple matter.
To illustrate the validity of our argument, I need only refer to our own recent Canadian experiences. We all know that, without a change in conditions or circumstances, the change of a premier of a province has made possible the resumption of successful negotiations with the federal government that had previously been discontinued in despair. I use that as an illustration of what the removal of a personality in a certain situation could mean. In addition, we believe that the last reply of the Peiping government held out some hope that negotiations could be resumed under changed circumstances, and I quote from the statement of Chou En-lai:
The central peoples government of the peoples republic of China solemnly declares that the Chinese people eagerly hope that the hostilities in Korea can be settled peacefully.
Therefore, we propose that the initiative in this matter should be taken by our own Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We recognize his ability to undertake delicate negotiations and to approach a problem of this complicated nature in the right spirit and in the right capacity. We further suggest that he might propose to the Indian representative that his government

External Affairs
contact the Peiping government, while he approaches the United States government on the following specific proposals: first, that a conference be called of the representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, the U.S.S.R., China, France, India and Egypt, and second, that this conference consider as its first order of business the arrangement of a cease-fire and armistice, with a demilitarized zone ten miles on either side of the 38th parallel. On the 15th of December, 1950, the group on the cease-fire committee recommended a demilitarized area across Korea of approximately twenty miles in depth, with the southern limit following generally the line of the 38th parallel. We suggest ten miles each side of the 38th parallel, because we firmly believe we should use every opportunity we can to demonstrate our desire to commence the negotiations on a basis acceptable to the people of the governments concerned. We further suggest that this zone should be supervised by a commission composed of representatives of nations not engaged in military operations in Korea. Third, we propose that negotiations should be commenced with a view to the progressive withdrawal of non-Korean forces from both sides, as the circumstances permit, and that this withdrawal be supervised by the commission I have mentioned, appointed to supervise the demilitarized zone. Fourth, we further propose that this conference should then give consideration to the establishment of a unified democratic government for all Korea, and the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the Korean economy. Fifth, finally, consideration must then be given to other outstanding far eastern issues, including the admission of the Peiping government to the United Nations. In that respect I want to quote Mr. Kenneth Younger, secretary of state in the British government, as reported in the Montreal Standard of May 5:
Northampton, England, May 5 (Reuters). -Kenneth Younger, Britain's minister of state, said today Britain still hopes for an eventual peaceful settlement with communist China. "We believe . . . that the new China is entitled to take her place in the world," he told his constituents in an address.
We believe if the proposals we have outlined here can be attained in the order mentioned-there is no question of appeasement-then you will have attained a ceasefire, and if successful an armistice; you will have conducted satisfactory negotiations and you will have reached a stage where the Chinese government will have given some demonstration of its desire for a peaceful settlement of this most difficult question.
We believe that this conference should consider the Japanese peace treaty and also the question of Formosa, as mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
[Mr. Herridge.l
I do not wish to take the time of the house at great length. I have outlined briefly the proposals which are the consensus of this group with respect to this particular problem at this time. As representatives of the Canadian people we believe it is our responsibility and duty to leave no stone unturned in our search for an honourable and lasting settlement of this very unusual problem. Approaching this question with a genuine desire for a peaceful solution, we must recognize the fact that mutual understanding is to some extent handicapped by several factors that do not enter into negotiations between nations of the western world. We must recognize the fact that the Chinese harbour some traditional resentment as the result of a century or more of exploitation by the nations of the western world. In addition we must appreciate the difficulties caused by language and our different ways of thinking-difficulties that can prevent an identical and mutual understanding of even a single written paragraph.
In connection with the understanding of the oriental mind, and the different thinking processes of the oriental as compared with the occidental, I should like to quote from an editorial which appeared in the Christian Science Monitor of recent date. The editorial, which is headed "What Makes Orientals Act The Way They Do," is as follows:
Arthur W. Hummel, Director of Orientalia, Library of Congress, addressed the annual gathering last week of the American Philosophical Society, offspring of Ben Franklin's "Junta" that met in Philadelphia during the eighteenth century to discuss the promotion of useful knowledge. He singled out certain aspects of Chinese culture regarded as characteristic and pertaining to the survival of the traditional Chinese world view, now menaced by an overpowering alien philosophy.
If we are to maintain durable peace and if the people of Asia are to be helped by the Point Four program, it seems time for the western world to learn a bit about the traditions of the Orient and understand the Oriental viewpoint. Absorbed as we are in intellectual and moral values derived from Greece, Rome, Palestine, and Egypt, we forget that half the people of the world have mental and moral treasures equally as old as ours that came to them through other channels.
As Mr. Hummel pointed out, while the philosophies of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism are not wholly unrelated to ours, they stress aspects of thought and conduct that we have not explored. In a rapidly shrinking world it is highly important for us to understand them, even though we are by no means obliged to accept them.
The unwavering Oriental insistence, for example, that the means are as important as the ends, that tact and good taste are necessary ingredients in every act, are matters of considerable moment in world affairs.
Today surely it is plain that for a well-rounded education some thought should be given to Oriental history, traditions, and moral values in western institutions of higher learning.

On a sphere such as our planet there can be no favoured spot or favoured people if harmony is to prevail.
Mr. Speaker, there must be great allowance made for the difference in the thinking processes of the oriental and occidental minds. On our part we must not allow any personal pique or prejudice to influence our willingness to negotiate. We must not only view the events of yesterday or of recent years, but must understand the background provided by a century of western exploitation. Any student of history knows that the western nations have dripped some large and dark blots on the pages of history in their dealing with Asian people. Without a doubt, in China particularly the Boxer settlement, extraterritorial concessions, the customs imposts and the history of the opium trade make it necessary, if we are to approach this question with understanding, to do so with a total perspective of all the factors involved. The stakes are too high for anyone to indulge in acrimony or bitterness.
Therefore the C.C.F. urges the government to give consideration to the proposals I have just outlined. We believe sincerely that if these proposals are accepted they will further indicate the high purpose of Canadian policy as already demonstrated by the work of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at the United Nations, and in his relations with other countries. We sincerely believe that the present circumstances do provide an opportunity for all concerned to conclude this matter to the advantage of all mankind. In that respect we differ from the minister's statement of this afternoon. Should we fail, the record will bear witness to our good intentions, and our desire for the building of peace between the Chinese and Canadian people on the basis of justice, equity and mutual respect.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, as a member from one of the west coast constituencies of Canada I should like to make a few remarks in the debate, more particularly because of the statements made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I did not agree with several of those statements, and I think they should be discussed thoroughly in the house and in the committee on external affairs in the hope that it will be possible for Canada to arrive at a policy which will be more in line with the best interests of the country.
Before going on to place my thoughts before the house, may I say simply to my very good friend, who has just delivered an eloquent speech, that I believe sincerely if the policy he has advocated were carried
External Affairs
out it would not have the effect he and I and all members of the house hope for, which is world peace, but would probably have just the opposite effect, and be the cause of a third world war.
Today the great problem facing all the free nations is the threat of communism. That threat of course is world-wide, including threats right here in our own homeland of Canada. The threat must be met on all fronts. We cannot let Asia go and concentrate on Europe. And of course the reverse is true, that we cannot let Europe go and concentrate on Asia. I believe it is a great mistake when people line up behind a policy either of "Europe First" or of "Asia First."
I can understand why European countries would play down the Pacific, and why Asian and Australian countries would play down the Atlantic. But for our nation of Canada both of these areas are of vital importance. After all, we are a North American country facing on both the Atlantic and the Pacific. Furthermore we lie between the United States and Russia and certainly in the event of a third world war Canada would be under attack. So I suggest we must look on this problem as a global rather than an Atlantic problem or a Pacific problem.
For nearly a year the greatest threat has been in Korea. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) expressed that clearly in a statement he made to the federal-provincial conference on December 4, 1950, when he used these words:
At the moment, the focus of our hopes and fears is Korea. We must strive to find a solution to the grave and menacing problem that has arisen there.
That is still the situation. Korea is still the centre we must watch. Here in this house we should consider what Canada's attitude should be on Korea. I would point out to hon. members that what is going on in Korea is a United Nations show. North Korea attacked South Korea and all in due order the United Nations branded North Korea as an aggressor and for the first time took collective action against aggression. The minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they decided not only to take action against aggression but to unify Korea.
As we all know, our forces were successful at first. The war against North Korea was practically won by the United Nations forces. Then communist China joined in the aggression and in spite of the fact that such action had been taken the members of the United Nations went to every possible length to bring about conciliation. I do not believe that there was one stone left unturned in an attempt to work out a peace settlement. Many

External Affairs
of us wondered whether the United Nations were not going too far in the efforts that were being made to bring about such a settlement. When one remembers that, it is hard to understand that a party in Canada would get up here and demand that conciliation steps should be taken under the present circumstances.
The communist Chinese have never shown any sign of regret or any sign that they felt they were in the wrong. In due course they were branded by the United Nations as aggressors, just as North Korea had been some months earlier. Yet they continued, and have continued right up to tonight, their barefaced aggression. They have continued to try to drive the United Nations forces into the sea. That is their objective. They have announced it time and again and their actions in the last week or two have proved up to the hilt that that is what they aim to do. They are not sacrificing thousands and thousands of men for nothing; they aim to drive the United Nations forces into the sea.
That should make every member of the United Nations not with the communists pause and consider what attitude should be adopted. I. suggest to the minister that the aim of all members of the United Nations who are with us, certainly the aim of Canada, should be to gain victory in Korea just as quickly as possible. The whole future of the United Nations is at stake. It must be shown that that organization is able to stop aggression in Korea. If the United Nations forces are defeated in Korea, the United Nations is dead as an effective world organization. Our hopes of world peace will be gone. I believe that the situation would not be very much better if the United Nations now offered to make a settlement with the communist Chinese before they have been beaten. That too might very well mean the end of the United Nations.
Canada should consider and advocate steps to win this United Nations war. This is a United Nations war that we are fighting and it must be won. I cannot understand what would be wrong with placing a strategic embargo against communist China. The minister said this afternoon that Canada and all other nations were against any such action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I used the expression "naval blockade", which is quite different from a strategic embargo. We already have an embargo on armaments and such things to communist China.


Howard Charles Green: We have not the kind of embargo the United States is asking for. I IMr. Green.]
have here a press dispatch from Lake Success dated May 4 as follows:
United States urges "strategic embargo" against red China.
The United States pressed today for a United Nations "strategic embargo" against communist China in the face of British commonwealth objections to the timing of such a move.
In outlining the arms embargo plan to reporters last night, American delegate Ernest A. Gross said:
"I don't think that any nation backing the UN action in Korea could object to a program ensuring that no soldier in Korea should be the target of a bullet manufactured in the free world."
In today's evening papers we find an article headed, "Britain limits shipments to red China." The British are now taking steps to stop this trade with China. I suggest that Canada should be endorsing this request of the United States right up to the hilt.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not want to interrupt
my hon. friend's speech, but I can clear up that point right now. The proposal which he has read from the newspaper is one which the Canadian delegation to the United Nations has supported. That proposal does not go as far as the steps we have already taken in the control of strategic goods going from Canada to communist China.


Howard Charles Green: That may be, but there have
been goods going to China from other United Nations, as witness the statement made today in the British house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am talking for Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Canada should be advocating
an embargo against communist China. I do not see any reason why there should not *also be a naval blockade. It is all very well to be idealistic and theoretical, but we must remember that tonight in Korea young Canadians are being killed by Chinese. The Chinese have been killing them for some weeks and with the next few days hundreds more may be killed.
Just about thirteen or fourteen years ago we saw this same policy being carried out in Vancouver. Under the bridge over which I travelled each day by street car to go to work I could see the Canadian destroyer Vancouver, which I believe was on loan from Great Britain, being broken up into scrap which was to be sent to Japan to make steel. We protested in this house about scrap metal being sent to Japan, and the longshoremen on the coast refused to load those ships. The answer we got in parliament was, "Oh, well, if we try to stop that we will make Japan angry, and she is apt to fight." Now we are getting exactly the same argument from the government, that we cannot do this or we cannot do that, because if we do the Chinese communists may get angry.

If the Chinese communists do not get angry then the Soviets might get angry and we might get into a war. Yet all the time the Chinese are killing our men just as fast and in just as large numbers as they are able to. This sort of thing is ridiculous. The Canadian government should make up its mind that Canada is in a United Nations war which has got to be won, and that our one objective should be to win that war.
The minister also said this afternoon that he was against the bombing of Manchurian bases unless the Chinese air force began to get nasty and to do too much fighting over Korea. He said that perhaps it would then be all right for General Ridgway to send his planes to bomb the Manchurian bases. Surely when you are in a war your objective is to win it just as quickly as possible. I do not think it has -been fair throughout for the politicians at Lake Success to put all these wraps on the generals who have been trying to win the war. Not only are there air bases in Manchuria from which planes can come but there are also military bases. From these military bases the communists have been -coming in their hundreds of thousands. They are being equipped and supplied from these military bases. I suggest that we should not tie General Ridgway's hands in dealing with these bases. If it is necessary for him to bomb them in order to win the war, then let him bomb them.
Then there is another thing. Why should Chinese nationalist troops not be used in Korea? Why must Canadian and American troops, and troops of other members of the United Nations, do all the fighting and Chinese nationalist troops not be used? Nationalist China is a member of the United Nations. She holds one of the permanent seats on the security council. According to the little -booklet of documents on the Korean crisis tabled earlier in the session, nationalist China offered on July 3, a little over a week after aggression started in Korea, three infantry divisions and twenty C-47's. The offer was turned down.
Last Friday or Saturday General Mac-Arthur in his statement to the United States committee told them that last November, when his troops had their backs to the wall and when battle conditions were so tragic, he asked permission to use 30,000 or more Chinese nationalists troops to help stem the red Chinese onslaught, and that that request was refused because, for one reason at least, some of the other nations, which presumably included Canada for the commonwealth countries were mentioned, objected to it. The result was that the United States did not feel she could use those troops. No one is 80709-178
External Affairs
advocating sending United Nations troops to the mainland of China. General MacArthur has been very careful to say that he had not and would not advocate that, but surely those troops could have been used in Korea to help repel the aggressors.
We talk about the Americans going to extremes but we are apt to do the same thing ourselves. Look at the attitude we adopt towards the two groups of Chinese. A few years ago Madame Chiang Kai-shek spoke to us in this chamber. Members who were here at the time will recall how we thought she was perfect. We could not do enough for China. We were full of sympathy for the Chinese nationalists; I have never seen any stronger reaction than there was right in this chamber at that time. Today the attitude, as expressed by -both C.C.F. speakers, is that nothing could be worse than the nationalist Chinese. Apparently they are just the last people on earth that we should think of helping.


An hon. Member:: No.


Howard Charles Green: That is the attitude, and on
the other hand the communist Chinese seem to be all right. They should be offered peace. We should go out of our way to try to negotiate with them. Yet just about a week ago we read in the press of the kangaroo trials in Canton broadcast over the radio to Hong Kong; people were being tried by the citizens court and rushed off to be shot. People are being murdered probably by the hundreds of thousands by these same Chinese communists. Let us not lose our sense of proportion. I cannot see why nationalist Chinese troops are not good enough to fight against communist Chinese troops if that can be arranged, and apparently it can.
There is one other step that Canada should take to help win the war in Korea. I believe that Canada should demand in the United Nations that all members of that organization who were in favour of fighting aggression in Korea get in and do some fighting. Why should there only be fourteen countries doing any fighting? If there are many cases of that kind the United Nations cannot survive. This is a joint effort. We are in a United Nations war, and every member of the United Nations which voted for the war should be supplying troops. I hope that the Canadian representatives will have the courage to take that stand in the debates in the United Nations.
A lingering war such as is going on in Korea at the present time can only bring damage. What is taking place there now is what is going on in Indo-China and Malaya

External Affairs
only on a much larger scale. The Chinese communists are not likely to stop fighting and apologize for what they have done. They have to be defeated, and Canada and the other members of the United Nations might just as well face that fact. Remember that in Asia the stakes are high. Several hundred million people of Asia are standing on the sidelines watching to see which way this fight is going to go. The situation is quite different from that in Europe, where practically every nation is committed. In Asia there are several hundred million people just watching to see which side wins.
The United Nations must decide whether or not it wants the Korean war won. I believe that decision must be made by the United Nations at this time. I do not believe that the attitude of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon was very helpful. If his attitude is general among the statesmen representing all the nations there is little hope of the United Nations winning the war in Korea. There must be less emphasis put on trying to keep from offending the communists and far more put on victory. The emphasis should be laid on victory and not on appeasing these aggressors.
You see, the minister's stand today in effect meant this: that if the Chinese communists go back above the 38th parallel and then say they are not going to fight any more, that they are sorry they killed so many Americans, Canadians and others, then Canada would be in favour of negotiating over Formosa; Canada would be inclined to give them Formosa; and Canada would be willing to discuss allowing communist China to become a member of the United Nations and take the permanent seat on the security council. I am afraid there is too much hom-burg hat direction in the fighting of the war in Korea. I think we would get ahead a great deal faster and get the war over a great deal sooner if we let the generals do the managing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Brass hats, not black hats.


Howard Charles Green: For example, when the minister was speaking today about the folly of an economic blockade of the China coast, I thought he was stepping into the military sphere, and that he would have done far better to confine himself to diplomacy. This affair has now reached the stage where the lives of young Canadians are at stake; and this war must be won. If the war is not won, if the aggressors are not defeated, in my judgment those lives will have been given in vain.

So much for Korea. As I have pointed out, it is a United Nations show, the only one; and it is the only one we are likely to have for a long time. We were only able to get into it by reason of the fact that the Soviet was sulking and not attending meetings of the security council at the time the aggression arose. She is now back in the council, and would veto any action should a similar situation arise in future.
Canada's foreign policy has been defined from time to time by the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as being primarily to support the United Nations; and we all agree with that as a first policy. The second policy has been announced as reliance upon regional arrangements, of which the North Atlantic treaty organization is an example. Of course the troops who go to Europe will not go as United Nations troops, as was the case with those who went to Korea. Those going to Europe will go as troops of the North Atlantic treaty organization. That treaty seems to be working out fairly well, and I think everyone in this house supports the actions that have been taken under it. Mention was made of the treaty in the report of the external affairs committee which sat last session, where you will find this reference:
Your committee approves of the action taken by Canada under the provisions of the North Atlantic treaty in the interests of preserving world peace and security.
Then the committee went on to add:
Your' committee recommends that increasing attention be given to the Asiatic zone.
You see, Mr. Speaker, in the Pacific area there is no such regional arrangement.


David Arnold Croll: Does the hon. gentleman know that Australia and New Zealand have entered into a regional arrangement with the United States without regard to the rest of the commonwealth, and without discussions with Great Britain?


Howard Charles Green: I am coming to that in a moment. As a matter of fact that arrangement has not been completed.


David Arnold Croll: The British papers say it has. Mr. Morrison said so in his speech.


Howard Charles Green: I believe there is no such regional arrangement in the Pacific completed as yet. I suggest that Canada's policy for the Pacific area should be to be ready to combine with the other nations to provide security in that area, and to encourage economic collaboration. Of course under the North Atlantic treaty provision was made for economic collaboration as well as for security

measures, and the same thing would be true of a treaty for the Pacific. The United States, Australia and New Zealand are making a start. For her own safety Canada should join with those nations. Personally I cannot understand why Canada has not joined with the United States, Australia and New Zealand to set up a regional pact in the Pacific. I believe we will be losing a great opportunity not only for the present but for all time if we do not take steps to join such an organization. Perhaps the United Kingdom and France could also be members. I have here a press dispatch of April 25 headed "Britain now hopeful of being included in Pacific pact". Apparently the British feel they were left out. The dispatch is from London, and reads:
The Labour government, under fire in the House of Commons for failing to get in on the proposed Pacific pact between the United States, Australia and New Zealand, hopes to be included when wider security arrangements for the area are made, a spokesman said.
I see no reason why the Philippines should not be a member, and the other Pacific nations as they become stable once more. So for the Pacific area I urge upon the minister once more that Canada should promote the establishment of a Pacific defence pact.
Then I believe we should insist that Formosa must not be turned over to the Chinese communists. It is vital to Canadians on the west coast as a defence measure that Formosa should not be in the hands of our enemies. Those who heard General MacArthur speak a few days ago will remember how he pointed out that before the last war the western strategic frontier of the United States was on the littoral line of the American continent, with what he described as an exposed island salient running out to Hawaii, Midway and Guam to the Philippines. He went on to say that this salient proved to be a great menace in time of war, that the Japanese had attacked by coming along the salient. He then explained that as a result of the victory in the Pacific a strategic frontier had now been established along the line of islands just off the Asiatic coast including Japan, Formosa and the Philippines. He pointed out very clearly that this line was not for offensive action but for defending this North American continent, and that if any part of that line were to go-if for example Formosa were to be given over to an enemy-then the whole line could be broken down from Formosa. Japan could 80700-1781
External Affairs
not be held, probably the Philippines could not be held; and he concluded with these words:
Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan, and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.
He did not mention British Columbia, but the frontier of Canada in the Pacific area would then be forced back to the coast of British Columbia. I believe that those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope are entitled to ask of this government that Canada take the stand that Formosa must not be turned over to the Chinese communists. Let us maintain our line of defence on the far side of the Pacific, and not on our own front doorstep.
Thirdly, in the Pacific, I agree that Canada should give openhearted support to such plans as the Colombo plan, or any plan under the United Nations that will help the underdeveloped countries of Asia. I believe that a worth-while step has already been taken in that direction, and that Canada has in those parts of Asia a great store of potential good will and great possibilities for trade in the future. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I heartily endorse everything that can be done to help those countries of southeast Asia.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the British commonwealth. I suggest that Canadians, in these days of a two-power world, a world with the United States on one side and Russia on the other and with everyone caught in between, are getting a clearer realization of the value of the commonwealth. Thoughtful Canadians are wishing the commonwealth stood today, as it did in the recent war, as a third great world power. The value of the commonwealth in the world today is tremendous for many reasons, some of which are that the commonwealth must, of necessity, be for peace. It is so scattered about the world that it must stand for peace. Then, the component parts have shown that they can work together as equals in a manner that has never been accomplished by free nations in the world before. It links countries of Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and North America; links the east and the west, the north and the south, and links diverse races. It has had great experience and has great patience in world affairs. These are all facts which today give the British commonwealth great value in the world.
Canada, because of her geographic position, because of her friendliness with all the members of the commonwealth, her understanding of the United States and her increasing

External Affairs
strength, occupies a position of great responsibility and great opportunity among the nations of the commonwealth. I hope that the policy of this government, and the policy of Canada for all time, will be to maintain and strengthen the British commonwealth.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, when one gets towards the latter hours of a debate like this and undertakes to detain the house further, one is reminded of something I once quoted in this house, that devastating comment which Churchill once made about a speech, and one fears one may fall into the criticism he made. He said of a speech that parts of it were true and parts of it were trite; the parts that were true were trite, and the parts that were not trite were not true. I hope I shall not fall wholly into this criticism, but if I do at any rate it will probably be brief. I do not propose to comment at length, or indeed at all, on the minister's policy in Korea. My colleague the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and more lately the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) have spoken on that.
What I want to ask the house is, in the light of these serious things which we have been hearing today, in the light of the discussion which we are assured, and which we indeed believe, affects our very survival as a nation, how many people in this country by .their day to day actions show that they have the slightest realization of this? I would think that a very, very small fraction of the people of Canada would fall into this category. The only ones I can think of who by their day to day 'life show they have the slightest personal realization of it would be the relatives of those who are already in the fighting line, and those whose work has been dislocated by the changeover from peace to defence activities. I doubt very much if anyone sitting in the gallery of this house today would have got the slightest feeling that there was any sense of urgency. The last thing in the world he would have thought was that we were here representing a nation of people who were troubled about their very survival. I am not foolish enough to suggest that we should get excited and look as if the end of the world were coming. I do suggest that it is a matter for very serious questioning as to why these facts are facts, if I am right in stating them as I do. Why is it?
I suppose that I would say, first of all, there has been no real sense of urgency. I will not say it has never been indicated by the government, because I have no doubt the words have been used. There has been, however, no real putting of it across. When

the labour estimates were being considered a day or two ago there was a reference to an advisory committee which was appointed with a great flourish of trumpets last February, I believe, after an address by a leading industrialist which was supposed to shake us all up and nearly make us all over again. As I understand it, that committee had an inaugural meeting, and I presume a dinner or something of the kind. Then they separated to their various places of abode, and so far as I know they have never been back. They are not going to come back, either, for some little time. There is no chance of finding any sense of urgency there.
Then, there is the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made or which was attributed to him-I do not want to be unfair about it-the fifty to one shot. All I want to say about that is that it did its damage. Whether or not he said it or whether he should have said it, I am not going to comment upon that, but so far as I know there has never been any effective action to counteract it. I gather that people who have the responsibility of office, and the infallibility which comes from that, find it impossible to ever say directly they are wrong. Sometimes, by indirection, we feel that they have been wrong; sometimes we think it is possible they may even know themselves they have been wrong, but we know they will never say they have been wrong. However, there are ways, indirect ways, of countering that unfortunate statement, but they have never been attempted. I suggest very earnestly that the feeling still remains that all this talk about danger and the need for a defence program-all it has meant has been full employment and the high cost of living. Of course, we shall hear more about that, but it has not been with us long enough to really sear people's souls as it will later.
I want to turn to another aspect of this important situation. I suppose everyone will agree that, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, the relationship between ourselves and the United States is a matter of overwhelming importance. The other day I was speaking with a group of school boys, and I wanted to see how this thing appealed to them. They were boys who, I imagine, in the United States would have been subject to conscription, so I Was interested in ascertaining whether it ever occurred to them to wonder why we were so free from anything of that kind; why they were not only free from conscription but they were even free from any sense of duty towards their country. I asked them about it, and so far as I could discover their feeling was: after all

this is a United States affair and we are out of it, and that is lucky, and we can have things that they cannot have in the United States; and they just let it go at that. In these circumstances I propose to refer to what has already been referred to, namely, the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on April 10. It seems to me so out of line with the other things that he has said, nevertheless I do not think it can be set aside and regarded just as a little jeu d'esprit which perhaps might better not have taken place, but which is over and done. It raised of course in my mind the question of the multiplicity of speeches which are being made on festive occasions by ministers in these times; and the Secretary of State for External Affairs I think probably is more subject to that kind of thing, because after all he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have no doubt he gets many requests of this kind. It would be a very bold person indeed who would say that none of these should be accepted. After all, it is a recognized thing on the 9th of November, if I have the date right, usually to have a statement on external affairs made in Britain. I am not sure whether it is the prime minister or the minister for foreign affairs who makes the statement. But there is always a certain danger in these speeches to outside audiences. There is a certain desire to be entertaining and fresh, and to say something exciting to make them feel they have got on the inside; and of course if the things said are things which have not been said anywhere else it is even more diverting to them. Whereas when speeches are made in this house you have the chilly glare of members, if they happen to be in the house listening to you, you have the chilly fact of looking at them, and you are much more likely, I think, to weigh your words.
Perhaps we might say that that is the reason that the minister stepped aside a little on that day. At any rate, it seems to me unfortunate, and it seems to some other people unfortunate, because I think he has left rather widespread the impression that we in Canada have in fact a lot of grievances and that we really feel very edgy towards the United States. Speaking for myself, I have no such feeling, but a very contrary feeling. As a matter of fact I am going to quote from the minister, things which show that he also usually has a very contrary feeling, and that is what makes me more than ever surprised, how we ran into all this, how he said all these things on that particular day.
External Affairs
But first of all, I wish to read just a short passage from the Hamilton Spectator, a fairly independent paper of course. It says:
It is regrettable that Mr. Pearson (or some behind-the-scenes prompters) should have directed a taunting lecture to a people who are now facing an intense domestic storm while they fight a disturbingly difficult war ordered by the United Nations. It does nothing for unity.
Then I propose to quote just a short extract from the Montreal Gazette of April 12, which expresses exactly my own feeling: I do not think there is any feeling throughout Canada of grievance, or that we have been pushed around. The article is entitled: "Are they pushing you around?" And it begins:
Most ordinary Canadians, it would seem, don't harbour any sense of smoldering grievance against the United States. They are more likely to thank God that we are as near as we are, and as inwardly close as we are. For this reason anyone who attempts, in however subtle a manner, to cultivate a sense of grievance where none really exists is doing both nations a very poor service.
For some time certain Canadians have been writing articles (many of them in American magazines) in which they have pointed out that Canadians are pretty well fed up with the treatment the United States is giving them. They are sending public memos to Uncle Sam to tell him so.
Later the article says:
Possibly those who move at diplomatic levels have special occasion to feel slights and pricks that fortunately do not torment those who lead a more normal Canadian life. This may explain why many Canadians may not quite understand the sources of Mr. Pearson's evident annoyance.
I want now to quote from the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself; I want to quote first of all what he said in his speech on April 27, and which indicates what I would imagine to be the minister's normal feeling toward the United States, and certainly what I would hope is his normal feeling. Speaking of the United States, he said:
We in Canada know this country and its people well. We know them as good neighbours who respect the rights of others, who don't ask for or get automatic support from smaller countries through pressure or threats or promises. We know that they accept the fact that co-operation between large and smaller countries can only exist on a basis of mutual confidence and mutual respect.
This speech came after the other one on April 10, and I think perhaps the minister was to some extent softening up what he had said before. This afternoon I took down two or three of the things which the minister said, and which are very much along the same line. He spoke of the United States as having "unquestioned leadership of the free world". He said that we "can view this historic development without apprehension", and he spoke of the United States, "whose people have no desire to dominate other

External Affairs
countries"; and again he said, "we have good reason to believe that they will discharge their responsibilities with courage and respect for the rights of others". These seem to me to be eminently proper sentiments. I am sure they are very sincere, and they make me wonder more than ever why we had the speech of April 10 at all.
The seriousness of it I think was indicated this evening by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). He had told me before of his feeling that the speech of the minister, freely quoted evidently in Europe, had been used by all these people unfriendly to the United States as showing that we, who are ordinarily considered to be so friendly to them, through our Secretary of State for External Affairs, were virtually accusing them of what other people had been accusing them, namely, pushing people around, and all the unpleasant things which certain leftist elements in Europe are constantly attributing to them. Perhaps the evidence of the hon. member for York West had made me feel much more deeply than I had before how unfortunate this was and how desirable it is that whatever can be done to set it right should be done. This afternoon's Journal has an indication which seems to me very strong that the idea of pushing around was remote. It gives an account of what General Marshall said today before the committee in Washington. I read the summary:
Defence secretary Marshall disclosed today that 13 United Nations allies last December vetoed an urgent United States recommendation for "hot pursuit" of Chinese red warplanes for a stated distance over the Yalu river in Manchuria.
The "hot pursuit" plan was approved by President Truman and secretary of state Acheson. But the 13 other United Nations involved in Korea-
That included Canada, no doubt-of course it included Canada. I continue:
But the 13 other United Nations involved in Korea, "voted solidly against it."
"So for the time being," Marshall said, "we had to drop that."
Now, Mr. Speaker, there you have as clear an indication as you can have that in that particular instance far from being pushed about it was anything but being pushed about anywhere. Our views and the views of others, no more important than ours, were given full effect to. In the light of that I am going to read not at length but nevertheless I propose to read something from what the minister said in his speech of April 10, which I am objecting to.
He said:
Most of us resent being called, by certain people in the United States, a reluctant friend because Canada, a smaller power with special problems of her own, ten years at war out of the last thirty, on the threshold of a great war and essential pioneer

development, and with half a continent to administer, was not able to match, even proportionately, the steps taken by the United States last June and subsequently, which were required by United Nations decisions about Korea.
And then later the minister said what surprised me very much:
Canada, in my view at least, in not making the adjustment more quickly, should surely not be criticized more than, say Argentina or Egypt, or Sweden.
I must say that seemed to me terribly out of line with the rather proud things that we have said about ourselves, and our sense of responsibility, and so on. Now we are asking to be considered on no higher basis than Argentina. It is surprising that the United States should wish to treat us on a somewhat higher basis.
Then the minister said:
The days of relatively easy and automatic political relations with our neighbour are, I think, over. They are over, because, on our side, we are more important in the continental and international scheme of things, and we loom more largely now as an important element in United States and in free world plans for defence and development.
And I might quote at greater length. However I do not think I shall because I have indicated enough to show the line the minister took. I have indicated also that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as I can discover from talking with other people, this temper of the minister, this attitude the minister showed in making his speech, is not typical of others and, as I said earlier, I hope it is not typical of the minister either. But responsible people have to be responsible for the things they say.
One other thing I wish to bring to the attention of the house, and that is that there is a practical aspect to this. We have not only diplomatic relations with the United States, but we have business relations. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) not so long ago, in another of these speeches delivered outside the House of Commons-and a very interesting speech-delivered this time in the United States, and speaking to the American Arbitration Association, referred to the problem of defence and the difficulties connected therewith. He mentioned the question of American orders in Canada for materials of war, and Canadian orders in the United States. These figures are of particular interest to us now, when it looks as though we are suffering or in danger of suffering from an adverse balance of trade. In part the Minister of National Defence said:
We would make in Canada for ourselves and for the use of other North Atlantic treaty nations equipment which, with orders from you,-

That is, from the United States:
-would be produced in Canada as economically and rapidly as anywhere else.
And then later in the speech he said:
This sort of balanced arrangement is beginning, but just beginning, to work out. During the last nine months-
And this speech was made a month ago, on March 30:
-of 1950, you had placed firm orders with us for a total amount of about $17 million. We placed firm orders with you for a total of about $159 million, but there was a lot more under consideration. We expect that our expenditures in the United States on defence equipment of $65 million in 1950-51 will reach something like $300 million in 1951-52.
Here is a very important consideration. Here is the Minister of National Defence going to the United States, speaking to a very important audience and making a plea to them. Really, he is acting as a kind of high-class sales agent-and very properly, too. But certainly I doubt very much if the best way to make Americans well disposed to buy from us is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be banging the United States on the nose at the very moment the Minister of National Defence is trying to get them to buy more goods from us.
In the diplomatic world of course there may be ways of doing things that the rest of us, who have had experience only in the lower spheres, do not understand. But the ordinary businessman would say that that is not the best manner in which to make sales. It is like giving a cigarette to the man you are going to hang.
I undertook not to speak at length, and I am going to keep my undertaking. I have pointed out what I thought was unfortunate in what was said. I have said I am quite unable to understand why the minister did say it, because it seemed so out of keeping with a lot of other things he said. It must be the evil influence of Toronto. He went up to Toronto to speak to a combined meeting of the Canadian club and the Empire club. We all know that when people go to Toronto various things happen to them from time to time. It may be that he was carried away and perhaps said these things which he now repents. At any rate I suggest they are an unfortunate blot on the record. As I said earlier, while I know it is not possible for him to say he was wrong, he might indicate in an indirect way that he thinks he was just a little bit wrong; and possibly tonight, or when he speaks in closing the debate, he might explain to us that it was really Mr. Hyde who was up in Toronto and that Dr. Jekyll is really a very nice fellow who, in future, will always behave in a pleasant way.
External Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the position of the
C.C.F. ever since the outbreak of the trouble in Korea has been exceedingly clear. Here in the House of Commons last June, later at our C.C.F. national convention at Vancouver, and since then on other occasions, we have taken the position that decisions as to what should be done in or about Korea must be United Nations decisions collectively arrived at and collectively supported by all the members of the United Nations, including Canada.
During the course of the debate today my colleague from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) put forward proposals which we believe the government should now urge upon the United Nations as a means of achieving a cease-fire in Korea, rather than that the situation should go on from bad to worse, rather than that war in that area should linger indefinitely.
In addition, in that very important speech made by the leader of this group this afternoon, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) put forward our view that very positive steps must be taken by the nations in the fortunate position in which Canada is placed, to help improve the living standards of the more backward areas of the world. In other words, despite our understandable preoccupation with the immediate situation on the fighting fronts in Korea, we must not forget that our problem is a long-range one, and that at some stage in the piece we must achieve a different kind of world than we have at the present time. All parties in this house, all members of this house, are strong in support of the United Nations. I am sure that if we stop to think of it, however, we mean by that support not just that we are prepared to go from one police action to another, from one small scale war in the name of collective security to another, and on and on, but that we hope the day will come when under the aegis of the United Nations we may achieve those high ideals for mankind which are set out in the preamble to the charter of the United Nations.
That indeed is the reason why I felt that I wanted to get to my feet during the course of this debate and put forward a viewpoint which while held by a great many people is not too frequently put forward in these times. That viewpoint is that despite our preoccupation with the military necessities that are forced upon us, we must remember that somewhere along the road we must find a way in which to build a peaceful world or we will have no world at all.

External Affairs
It is most unfortunate that a certain group of people in the world-we have some of their number in our country-have made it difficult to talk about peace without running the risk of being misunderstood. I refer to a group of people who have a great deal to say about peace but whose aims are not in keeping with the meaning of that word. Nevertheless, that surely does not preclude the rest of us from keeping before our minds, even when we are concerned with the immediate necessity of stopping aggression in Korea, the fact that what we want and must yet win is a world of peace and human accord for all mankind.
My leader pointed out this afternoon that a year ago when it was being suggested that money might be appropriated to help to build up the backward areas of the world it was felt that the amount required was too great to make such a suggestion practical. A few months later when the necessity of military expenditures was forced upon us we found the ways and means to raise the necessary money. We have made it clear that we support the necessary defence measures that are being taken and the necessary defence expenditures, but I do hope that it is not a voice crying in the wilderness to suggest that in and through all of this we keep before us the realization that unless at some point in our struggle we achieve a world of peace there will be, as I have said already, no world at all.
A short time ago I picked up a rather interesting book dealing with semantics, the meaning of words, by Wendell Johnson. It contains a few paragraphs which express the thoughts that I have tonight much better than I could express them myself. I do not often indulge in quotations of any length, but there are two or three portions of Mr. Johnson's book that I should like to draw to the attention of the house. These are taken from the last chapter which is entitled-I find these words very intriguing-"The urgency of paradise". There is a bit of philosophy in this, but even when we are dealing with so-called practicalities it is a good idea to be guided by sound philosophy. Mr. Johnson says:
The race against destruction has now become a sprint. Prejudices and other semantic blockages that gum up the communication process will evidently have to be dissolved if the great majority of us are to escape the fleeting and thoroughly unrewarding experience of sudden death. In the past when words failed, men resorted to communication by means of hot steel, but most of us never got in the way of it. The next time words fail, millions of us will die, having discovered a second or two beforehand, if at all, how extremely

advantageous it would1 have been had we learned how to talk to other people and how to listen to them.
Obviously Mr. Johnson is basing his point and the point of his whole book on the premise that it would be a good idea, in all our relationships, if we knew the meaning of words a little better and were thus able to understand each other. Having gone on to discuss the advances that have taken place in the world of science, with particular reference to the tremendous world that has been opened up by the discovery of atomic energy, the author goes on to say:
We can no longer afford serious conflict, aggression, contempt, and hate. We can no longer tolerate studied confusion, cultivated distrust, and verbal irresponsibility. It is neither an academic nor a moral issue. It is a practical, down-to-earth question of survival. Uranium hangs heavy over our heads so long as we strive to preserve beliefs, loyalties, and institutions that disunite us-so long as we cherish the old superstitions, prides and prejudices with which we have muddled through to the crumbling edge of blinding disintegration.
After saying something more about what science can do for mankind, either for good or evil, he says:
Atomic power promises abundance as readily as desolation-but only on the condition, of course, that we welcome the abundance. It provides the effective basis for a world1 state as readily as it provides the means for nationalistic groups to fight each other to the death-but only provided we not decline the opportunity to create a world state. It contains the germ of an economy so efficient that freedom from want and from drudgery might be realized in fact, quite as clearly as it contains the seeds of economic ruin-again provided, of course, we do not too fondly cherish want and drudgery.
Then Mr. Johnson closes his book with a short paragraph of one sentence. Like the title of his last chapter I find this paragraph, this last sentence, most intriguing. This is what he says:
We have arrived, that is, at the strange circumstance of having to accept a virtual paradise if we are not to perish: only in our more stately mansions may refuge still be found.
We in this group recognize the need at this stage of world events for the defence preparations that we are making. We recognize and assert the need for United Nations collective action to stop aggression. But we also urge, as was so well put this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that we approach external affairs with the realization that it is the long view that counts. If I may have the privilege of paraphrasing what Mr. Johnson has said along with what my leader said this afternoon, I would say that only in the more stately mansions of the kind of world pictured this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, a world wherein we of

North America help to raise the standard of living of the peoples of southeast Asia, a world wherein we help wherever help is needed, may refuge still be found. But I believe that it can be found, and I believe that our job in supporting the United Nations is not simply to go from one police action to another, perchance from police action into wholesale war, but rather our task is even yet to achieve the high purposes set out in the preamble to the charter of the United Nations, and to win the kind of world in which there is peace and human accord for all mankind.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I should like to deal briefly with the famine in India and the international implications which that famine has raised. I should also like to discuss briefly the part which I believe this country can play in helping to alleviate that famine and thereby helping to win a very important economic campaign. In order to better describe what is going on in India today I should like to quote from the issue of April 21 of The Economist, which is a recognized authority on world affairs. The passage reads as follows:
Traditionally, India has at least one bad crop year in five; but this year the prospect of extreme famine in many different parts of the sub-continent constitutes a unique and desperate challenge. For the people, the suffering which is only just beginning, will certainly match the horror of five million deaths in the Bengal famine of 1943, and may considerably exceed it . . . Although the full extent of the famine cannot yet be known and may not really come to light until well after the monsoon breaks in June, the measure of India's present crisis is already clear. The only areas where the harvest has been at all satisfactory are East Punjab, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat . . . The result is that in some districts there are no grain stocks at all, and in others only a fraction of what is needed to keep the population barely alive . . . The United States is debating whether to give 2 million tons of wheat. China has recently offered 1 million and Russia has proposed a barter deal for 500,000 tons. Even if these various offers were implemented, and the first shipments were made at once, it is questionable whether sufficient food could arrive and be distributed soon enough to prevent disaster.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that outlines very clearly the gravity of the situation. I also feel sure that there is no member of the house who would not agree that from the humanitarian aspect Canada, and any other country which produces a surplus of food over and above what is actually required to feed its people, should do whatever it possibly can to try to help alleviate this frightful disaster.
I should like to deal with the political aspect of the situation, and again I should
External Affairs
like to quote from The Economist. The extract reads as follows:
Apart therefore from internal propaganda playing upon the unpopularity which the famine is inevitably bringing on the Indian government, the communist world is making a determined bid to capture the hearts and loyalties of millions of Indians by offering to step in where America can be made out to have failed. The delay in passing legislation through Congress to send the two million-or even one million-tons of grain proposed by President Truman, is unquestionably beginning to have a worse effect on Indian opinion than if the offer had never been made. Perhaps the Indians could increase their own purchases of American wheat, but even the most lavish expenditure of dollars would still leave a tragic gap. Both the Chinese and Russians have therefore made a concerted and deliberate political move in choosing this moment to announce their own offers of "aid." Hitherto America has at least had the international field to itself in providing economic assistance. The Chinese could not, of course, actually provide a million tons without starving their own people- though the Russians would no doubt release some stocks through Manchuria to be classed as Chinese deliveries. Nor could they ship it without Russian help. Equally, the Russian offer to barter jute, tea and cotton is insincere. Moscow's original offer was to provide 50,000 tons of grain, but when the Russians discovered that India had no surplus of the commodities they wanted, they pushed their offer up to 500,000 tons for its propaganda effort . . . The apparent fact that Mao Tse-tung should be willing and able to come to India's rescue, in spite of China's poverty, can be dressed up as a powerful argument for communism.
I think it is obvious that the situation is now developing into a conflict between the communist and non-communist countries for the friendship of India. I believe it is very unfortunate indeed that the United States is still withholding its offer of two million tons of wheat for political reasons, but this gives us a golden opportunity to show 'the way. As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pointed out this afternoon, we cannot defeat the forces of communism by military campaigns alone. Economic campaigns are every bit as important. We now have a wonderful chance to help to win an economic campaign where the stakes are a subcontinent.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has offered No. 5 wheat but the Indians have been unable to accept that offer because that wheat, which is normally used for cattle feed in this country, cannot be milled into atta, the Indian flour, by the primitive methods which are the only methods available to the Indian people for milling wheat. Therefore I believe it is up to us to make available wheat which the Indians can use and which they can mill into flour. If we do not and if the United States does not make wheat available which the Indians can use, then they will have no alternative but to accept the offers of Russia and China, even though those

External Affairs
offers have strings attached to them. If we fail and the communists' offers are accepted, then there is absolutely no doubt that India will move a great deal closer to Russia and China and a great deal farther away from the western democracies. I believe the chances are very great that we would never get India back because it is hardly likely that you would accept a former friend who had refused you food when you were starving.
I know that there are no stocks of wheat higher than No. 5 grade available at the present time in the normal trading sense of availability. However, I believe the situation is so vital that we in this -country must give up stocks which we have at the present time, and that we must do everything we possibly can to persuade our customers, who also are members of the North Atlantic treaty organization, to temporarily forgo shipments which are earmarked for them for immediate delivery. I believe that this contest for the friendship of India is as vital as any military campaign that has ever been waged. If we and the United States fail to make available wheat which the Indians can accept and use immediately we will lose that campaign. This, I believe we will all agree, we cannot afford to do. Therefore the government must act immediately.
In conclusion I would request the minister when he sums -up to advise this house what action the government plans in connection with supplying in the immediate future wheat which the government of India can accept.


William Joseph Browne: I am
sorry to disappoint so many hon. members opposite who expected the minister to reply, but I have a few observations I should like to make before he does so.
I have followed the debate today very carefully, listening to all the speakers; and I am sure all those who have done so will realize that there is a sharp divergence of opinion in this house on the way the United Nations is conducting the war in Korea, and a great deal of doubt as to Canadian policy in regard to that war. I realize that this is a very difficult subject, upon which a person should not enter without some preparation. There is an extensive background behind the war in Korea, and unless we have some knowledge of the background it is very difficult to get a true appreciation of the picture there. I do not for the moment suggest that I possess such knowledge to any great extent, but I have attempted to learn something about it.
It seems to me the party to my left is very sympathetic to the communist government in China. On every occasion members of that

party have spoken on the subject in this house they have either advocated the recognition of communist China by the Canadian government, or the seating of communist China at the United Nations, or the handing over of Formosa to communist China, or the removal of General MacArthur from his United Nations command. On the very eve of his removal we witnessed an exhibition here by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) during which in my opinion he used outrageous epithets in referring to that distinguished soldier. Whatever may be the faults of General MacArthur I believe the majority of members of this house will recognize his capabilities, his sincerity, and his distinguished career of fifty-two years in the service of his country as a military man. I think it ill behooves the member for Moose Jaw to use the terms he did in his speech, which was entirely inappropriate and out of order.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Asiatic situation is just as important as the European situation. I believe that if communism wins in the Asiatic area it wifi be strengthened to carry on its activities in other parts of the world. For the life of me I cannot understand why no one seems to regard the conquest of Japan as something -likely to be carried out by the communist governments of Russia and China. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) does not seem to regard that as a possibility; but if it should occur I contend that it would be a greater disaster to the free world than the conquest of western Germany at the present time.
The party to my left show no sympathy whatever to Chiang Kai-shek, who was defeated. In his address today the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked whether, if Chiang Kai-shek were assisted, there was any likelihood that he would be able to defeat the army which had driven him out of China. Let us look back on the history of China during the past few years and see what Chiang Kai-shek had to contend with; then perhaps we may get a better appreciation of his difficulties and have some sympathy with his present position. Chiang Kai-shek first became known as a military commander over twenty-five years ago. Later he had to contend with Russian communism, then with Chinese communism, and- then with the Japanese invasion.	He almost
succeeded in wiping out communism in China, driving the communists back to one small province in the northwest and reducing the number of their soldiers to less than 100,000. It was at the time of the Japanese invasion that Chiang Kai-shek was held prisoner by a

young Christian general, whose name I cannot remember. He was in the hands of his enemies and would have been executed but for the intervention of the government of communist Russia, who felt that it would be better for Chiang Kai-shek to be fighting the Japanese than the few thousand communist soldiers who could get no support from the great mass of the Chinese people. So Chiang Kai-shek was released and waged war against Japan for many years.
But he made the mistake of recognizing the communists in China, who were assisted by Russia to greatly expand their forces. When Russia intervened almost at the close of the war against Japan, she captured the industrial and military power of Japan in Manchuria and passed over to the communists the ammunition and equipment there obtained. So in a short time the communists became more powerful than Chiang Kai-shek himself. It was because of the great assistance, moral and material, given the Chinese communists by Russia that they were able to defeat Chiang Kai-shek and eventually drive him from the mainland to take refuge on the island of Formosa.
As yet the United Nations has not granted recognition to the communists in China. It is true that the government of the United Kingdom granted that regime recognition very quickly; but as the minister has himself pointed out, communist China has not been quick to grant recognition to the United Kingdom or to exchange representatives. Something more is involved here than mere courtesy. The communist government in China seems to be actuated by the same hatred of the western nations as communist Russia. I believe my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party are inclined to think that communist China is not directed by the same spirit that directs the government of communist Russia. It should not be hard for hon. members to believe that communism is the same all over the world. We have ample evidence in this country of the secret intrigues that were going on, even conducted by a member of this house, to assist Russia in securing world domination. The United States, the United Kingdom, every country outside of Russia has been the scene of these intrigues. It is undoubtedly the outspoken intent of communist Russia to get world domination.
I was astonished this afternoon to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) make one statement which I believe he could not uphold. He makes a statement, but he does not justify it and I challenge him to justify it.
External Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Joseph Browne: I shall make the statement. He said that the defeat of armed aggression in Korea was the sole military aim of the United Nations. Then he went on to quote with approval a statement by Warren Austin, and he said that it had been said "the United Nations forces were fighting to defeat communism," but that was not correct. If that is not correct, what is the correct position? Does anyone in this house consider for a moment that the attack of the North Koreans on the South Koreans was not inspired by Russia? Does the minister himself believe that? Does he not consider that there was agreement beforehand between the communists of North Korea, the communists of China and the communists of Russia to win over South Korea, and get a base for the attack on Japan? I shall go so far as to say that. If that attack was inspired by communism, and especially by the communists in the Kremlin, what are we fighting in North Korea? Is it not communism we are fighting? Was that not a stage in the communist plan for world domination?
Whatever we might say about General MacArthur, there is no one who can deny that he is the best authority on events in Asia. He has been there for the last fourteen years without a break, and he has encountered all these difficulties. He has brought Japan, a defeated nation, to a stage of prosperity which must be the envy of all the other nations in the east today. In his opinion, we are fighting communism in Korea. Certainly, we are fighting it there more than we are fighting it in Europe. We are fighting not a cold war in Asia, but a hot war.
Now, sir, if we are not fighting communism in Korea, how does the United Nations propose to fight it? The minister speaks of limited objectives. What are the limited objectives now? It was all right for the United Nations forces to pursue the enemy when it consisted only of North Koreans as far as the boundary of Manchuria, but that does not appear to be the objective any longer. My hon. friends to the left recommend that there should be a zone of ten miles each side of the 38th parallel, a sort of no man's land. The forces from South Korea should not advance beyond that area Is it true, and I hope the minister in his reply will give us some idea of United Nations policy in that respect, that the United Nations do not intend to do what they did before, and try to drive the enemy to the Manchurian boundary? Perhaps there is some truth in the statement of General MacArthur, and I believe of General

External Affairs
Ridgway too, that the war in Korea is now likely to end in a stalemate; that it is not possible for the United Nations forces, with the equipment and men that they have at the present time, to do much more than fight a defensive action. Certainly, they do not appear to have any intention of carrying the war to the Manchurian boundary at the present time.
As the minister has said, we are now on the defensive. One wave of the attack has passed, and we are now awaiting the second wave. No one knows what might happen as a result of that. The United Nations commander has confidence that he can repel the attack, and not allow himself to be driven into the sea. The other night I asked, and I ask again now, what is the United Nations policy in regard to Korea? We were told they went there as a police action. We are told again today that we are there to defeat armed aggression. What about compensation? What about those people from South Korea who have trudged mile upon mile through winter slush, frost and snow, spring muds and torrents, back and forth, men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands, like some great sea of suffering humanity. Our people here have hearts to feel and minds to think about the suffering of these people in South Korea. My hon. friends on my left, and the minister himself, tell us that we cannot defeat communism by military means alone. Neither can we defeat communism by economic means alone. Something more than talk about long-range plans and economic rehabilitation of these countries is necessary. There is a vital problem in front of us. There is a question of justice. We know what it means when a person is injured in his person, in his reputation or in his property. What about a nation when it is injured in its person and in its property? What about the houses destroyed, the thousands of people killed and perhaps the millions injured, families separated? What about all the suffering that has been caused? Is there to be any punishment for
these aggressors? I hear no talk of punishment in the councils of the United Nations. In this house I have heard no mention of punishment of North Korea or communist China. On the other hand, I hear talk of appeasement.
Mr. Speaker, it is eleven o'clock, and I would move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, last
week the Prime Minister announced that tomorrow, Tuesday, we would move to go into supply and take up the estimates of national defence, without calling any new departments. From eight o'clock until nine, there will be private and public bills. At nine o'clock the Minister of Trade and Commerce will ask to revert to motions to *make a statement on the results of the trade conference at Torquay. I understand that the participating nations have agreed to make this statement at the same time on the ninth, but owing to the difference in time, if we do not have this statement in the house tomorrow night, the members would get it by press from the outside. Then, after this statement, we shall resume consideration of the estimates of national defence.


George Alexander Drew: Could there not be an agreement that the Minister of Trade and Commerce make his announcement at eight o'clock instead of nine o'clock?


Alphonse Fournier: I am quite
embarrassed by that suggestion, because since the beginning of the session we have taken away two hours allocated to private bills. In all fairness to those that are before the house, I think we should give them the hour.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 8, 1951